Chinese Scientists Make Cow Producing Human-Like Milk 127
hackingbear writes "Scientists from China Agricultural University have produced 17 healthy cloned cattle expressing recombinant human lysozyme using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Lysozyme, a bactericidal protein that protects human infants from microbial infections, is highly expressed in human milk but is found in only trace amounts in cow milk. The cloned cows produce milk with similar nutritional benefits as human milk, and the scientists hope their results will lead to new techniques that could be further refined for production of active human lysozyme on a large scale."
Re: (Score:1)
There's nothing wrong in genetically altering stuff. Nature does it all the time. The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|
Re: (Score:2)
The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|
Not even close to accurate. Evolution takes place because of natural selection. There is nothing natural or fittest in selection to what man does via most generic engineering. In fact, much of the GE man does is actually contrary to what nature is likely to create - which is exactly why man is doing it.
While its true, some GE is simply turning on dormant genes, much of it is actively removing and splicing in new genes which have never before been part of the recipient's genetic structure. Such concepts are
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Much of what you describe actually is part of their genetics. These types of things have happened in nature. Frequently, this is why we see highly specialized variants which are unable to survive when the environment changes. There are many, many parallels in nature (as in without the hand of man) where such specializations are known to exist.
Certainly the crops and animals we eat today are not the result of "natural evolution."
I disagree. For much of the examples you give, these examples of symbiosis which is known to exists in many forms in nature (as in, without man). The same is also true
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
BTW, when the human-bred strains can no longer easily breed with their original kinds, that's proof that their genes HAVE changed sufficiently from what is found in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Such breeding normally results in inability to impregnate the egg, sterility (as in a liger or mule), loss of pregnancy (can't go full term), etc.. That means the genetics are saying there is an incompatible combination of genes, but it does not suggest the genes have changes outside of their common ancestry (not to say there isn't a possible intersection). We also see this happen in the wild. Pandas (inability to carry full term or become impregnated) and mules (sterile) are such examples and is the single
Re: (Score:2)
The "it's all already encoded in nature" is both a lie and the refuge of fundies who want to deny that evolution in any form can take place.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, at this point I can't tell if we are in violent agreement, talking two sides of the same coin, or are talking around each other in disagreement. :/
Regardless, a civil and respectful exchange is certainly an enjoyable change from most days on slashdot these days. So regardless of where we are, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, I'm not a fan of java, but a part of that is the over-verboseness of it, and part is the weird even
Re: (Score:2)
As for you, maybe you should stop with the cyber-stalking, and suck it up that your stupid "host files are the best defense against viruses an malware" crap isn't accepted by anyone with brains.
Re: (Score:2)
Mutation rates are affected by heat, by light, by food source, by lack of food, chemicals, etc. It's also been proven that horizontal gene transfer (organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism) occurs in nature quite often in single-celled creatures without human intervention. Subsequent offspring inherit the "new" genes.
As for human-guided genetic selection (selective mating) before the use of gene-splicing, it doesn't take that long. To c
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between modifying at the source code level and poking around in the binary.
Re: (Score:3)
I love how we can discuss this rationally, yet as soon as someone mentions the FSM tweaking our DNA a few billion years ago to cultivate us out of the primordial soup of Earth, people call him a blasphemer and accuse him of that most dreadful of sins: Creationism.
(It's ok. Flame-retardant suit is on. Let it fly.)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is environmental selection vs intellectual selection.
Because of crazy hippies, people forget mankind IS part of the environment. Selective breeding, generally to enhance a symbiotic relationship is part of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships are well known to exist throughout nature, in many, many environments without man. For example, some species of groupers and eels are known to have developed a symbiotic relationship and body language which initiates a group hunt for other food sources. In this case, if the good source bolts upward, the grouper get
Re: (Score:3)
Because of crazy hippies, people forget mankind IS part of the environment. Selective breeding, generally to enhance a symbiotic relationship is part of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships are well known to exist throughout nature, in many, many environments without man. For example, some species of groupers and eels are known to have developed a symbiotic relationship and body language which initiates a group hunt for other food sources. In this case, if the good source bolts upward, the grouper gets it. If it stays down low, the eel gets it. Without such symbiosis, the food would have likely escaped.Selective breeding to bias specific genes (such as to avoid birth defects, genetic diseases, or larger milk production) is not the same thing as entirely new variants created by splicing in entirely new genes; such as those used to create jellyfish-grass, etc., etc., etc
True - it is not the same thing. By the same token, it's hard to say that something is not part of the environment (or "natural" if we want to get hippy about it) because man created it. I suppose we're wandering into philosophical territory here, but unless man is creating something out of building blocks that don't exist in the environment, then I have a hard time seeing a case for these things not being part of the environment themselves.
I don't guess I follow what your point was there.
Just wandering off on a tangent. Don't mind me.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree this may be touching on philosophical boundaries, but I believe most agree, turning on and off genes (basically, making use of what's already there in the genome) are in a different category from splicing different genes without a common ancestor. In other words, I don't find it very easy to accept grass and jelly fish are likely to breed and create jellyfish-grass in nature. Again, the former is part of evolution, the later is not.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong in genetically altering stuff. Nature does it all the time. The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|
Yeah, that'll get the congressmen and senators who don't believe in evolution to allow it.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|
Naaah, can't call it that. "Intelligent design" perhaps...
Re: (Score:2)
But when will they come out with a Cow engineered to put the Melamine in automatically?
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong in genetically altering stuff. Nature does it all the time. The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|
Isn't this (the milk thing in the article) what Bush 43 referred to as "human-animal hybrids", and forbid by executive order?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but I don't think China much cares what an American president has forbidden.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but I don't think China much cares what an American president has forbidden.
That isn't what I was getting at. When he mentioned it, people were thinking about mad scientists and wondering why America should be prohibited from doing something so obviously wacky...The answer is because it may lead to pigs that can produce better insulin, cows that can produce better milk, and the only real cost is that people have to get over the "playing god" cliche.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear energy keeps the entire's world energy supply cheap. You have cheap energy exactly because there is cheap nuclear power.
You're ignorantly forgetting ALL energy is subsidized. Anti-nuke morons only want to point out the nuclear subsidies, which largely only exist and are only required because of nuclear morons.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in the states in 30 years. So, it is a surprise that the promises made in the fifties never happened? They were based on the assumption that we would use the new technology, rather than clinging to coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Mommy dearest! (Score:1)
I can see Freud clicking his heels in glee already! :-D
Yeah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
While it may meet the nutritional requirements, I wonder if if it has the antibodies and the like.
Re: (Score:3)
Like they do in France [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, I guess that explains the French and especially their men rather well. I don't think you can have an effective military made up of people who didn't even rate hind tit.
Re: (Score:2)
Strip clubs have the best packaging. :D
Re: (Score:1)
It's "human-like", not human. It still came from a cow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But whats the point if it is just a human-milk like substance that comes from a cow. Thats no fun to milk.
If you ever "milk" a human, you'll find that it's not much fun either.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya but, those women get really pissed when you try to brand 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
I know a guy who really enjoys it. Mind you, he's a bit weird - two feet tall, incontinent, and doesn't talk much.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no. You misunderstand. It is "cow producing human-like milk." From a bit of this special milk, you get a cow! Just like an acorn and an oak.
Re: (Score:1)
You can already get human milk ice cream in London: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/25/human-milk-ice-cream-sale [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a recipe [typepad.com] if you want to try it yourself
Re: (Score:2)
is it lactose free (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Human breast milk contains lactose as well. Lactose intolerance doesnt occur until after weaning; the body stops producing lactase, as it "assumes" it is done with milk and is moving to solid food.
Re: (Score:2)
Ehm, human milk is needed for feeding infants, not for you!
Odds are you did not have lactose intolerance when you were an infant, as "by design" humans are supposed to be able to digest milk fine for a while after birth, and then slowly lose the ability ("lactose intolerance" - could be nature's way of protecting the mother's milk from hungry adults). Interestingly, in societies where dairy products were consumed regulardly, mutations that allowed adults to produce the required lactase to process lactose we
Re: (Score:1)
Lactose intolerance isn't uncommon in Europe. Although the milk-drinking Dutch only have 1% of their population having lactose intolerance, the average in Europe is around 20%.
I'm happy there's at least 1 brand producing lactose-free products in Europe now, but it should be a standard for everyone !
Re: (Score:2)
in societies where dairy products were consumed regulardly, mutations that allowed adults to produce the required lactase to process lactose were favored
Just out of curiosity, how do you envision the root of such a bias to become genetically favored? "Oh, he's so dreamy, and he doesn't fart after drinking the goat milk?", therefore that created more breeding opportunities? Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the possible severity of lactose intolerance?
As an aside, since cheese is well know to contain little or no lactose, and is almost universally tolerated by lactose intolerant humans, wouldn't it seem more likely a culture would discover and embrace cheese
Re: (Score:3)
Just out of curiosity, how do you envision the root of such a bias to become genetically favored?
I imagine when you have easy access to milk and difficult access to other types of food, your survival chances are better if you can digest milk. Anyway, I guess instead of having me form hypotheses, when I am not in the field, you should best read what the researchers have to say. For example: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n1/abs/ng1946.html [nature.com]
But, as you say yourself, the problem is not cheese, so "cheese culture" is probably irrelevant. The example paper above, researches the correlation between the
Re: (Score:2)
But, as you say yourself, the problem is not cheese, so "cheese culture" is probably irrelevant. The example paper above, researches the correlation between the lactase genes and the history of animal domestication.
The problem with that is cheese has been around somewhere between 10,000 and 5,000 years, which squarely fits within that study's 7,000 year window; which overlaps with animal husbandry and domestication of lactating animals. Which suggests, any such study which fails to account for cheese within such cultures, likely isn't seeing the whole picture. That really sounds like half a study.
I did some quick checking, and lactose intolerance, at its worst, can interfere with nutritional uptake as well as hinder w
Re: (Score:3)
As one who is lactose intolerant (and of European decent) I can only tell you from my personal experience:
Nausea, heartburn like symptoms, and diarrhea are what I can expect after a glass of milk. Continued lactose has resulted in GI tract agitation to the point of bleeding.
I don't drink a lot of milk any more but I do love me some cheese.
Re: (Score:2)
^descent
words are hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to consume milk products drastically increases the survival advantage of mammalian animal husbandry. Fowl have the natural ability to concentrate calories from vegetation in a form which doesn't kill the animal (eggs), but mammals (outside of milk) don't.
So if you have a population which is
as long as they don't make ice-cream.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see, the sound of ga-ga has been associated with babies cooing for so long it may well be indefensible trademark-wise.
Re: (Score:3)
They are meddling with forces that they cannot possible control or understand!
Cows?
Bigger boobs ARE better (Score:2)
Bigger boobs ARE better.
Yet another Chinese proverb validated
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that it's not a magical switch... Garlic has been used for centuries and is a effective antibiotic and it has not spurned "mega BUGS" that destroy garlic heavy consumption groups... Italy should be rampant with nasty antibiotic resistant bugs....
Was this how they did it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ice cream are back (Score:1)
Finally we can get Breast milk ice cream [bbc.co.uk] back in stores !!!
In related news ... (Score:2)
"We're tired of having to share a tit with a cigarette smoker", says one.
Meh (Score:2)
With all the trouble needed to make this, wouldn't a human farm be cheaper?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The existance of wet nurses proves those requirements aren't necessary, lactation can be induced via a breast pump (or a volunteer willing to do some sucking...). Even if a baby turns out to be the simplest method it's only once per cow^Wperson.
The main problem will be that humans don't make that much milk and one woman is only going to produce enough product for a few babies.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem will be that humans don't make that much milk and one woman is only going to produce enough product for a few babies.
While you are correct, I think this just means that we'll have to do some selective breeding just as with dairy cows. After all, it's not like pre-domesticated cows produced anything like the volumes seen on dairy farms today.
The real problem is that cows don't have minimum wage laws, OSHA, etc. While there are probably some women, especially in the developing world, desperate enough to become professional milk-producers, the operating expenses must naturally be higher than a cow-based dairy producer. Add
This has to be a good thing (Score:3)
if they can get it approved and produced in large-enough quantities. It has been known for a long time that breast milk is far better than any of the 'formula' milks alternatives out there. There are, sadly, many women who cannot breast-feed for one reason or another (it may not be a high percentage, but it is still a lot of women). For them, they want to see the best done for their child and if this is a way of keeping their child healthier than the alternative then I'm sure an awful lot of them would take it as an option. I know that my wife and I would have done when she couldn't breast-feed our 2nd born due to her suffering from post-natal depression.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, to hell with Darwin.
I'm sure Darwin will take care of himself. But human race doesn't need to stay universally "fit" by cave-man criteria. If human race ever returns (temporarily I hope) to "cave man" environment, natural selection will quickly weed out those who become "unfit" then. Until then, anything which will increase human genetic diversity is a good thing, making it more likely that human race will survive whatever extinction-level event leading to return to stone-age.
human-like, not human (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all well and good, but it would take some seriously exhaustive studies to prove that this should be given to babies. Formula manufacturers have been trying to replicate human milk for YEARS without success. Milk is more than chemicals. It's hormones, it's enzymes, it changes based on what illnesses the mother is currently making antibodies for, it even changes from morning to night. I didn't think I'd ever become a breastfeeding militant, but it's happened... breastfeeding worked out so much better for my daughter & I than anyone ever lead me to believe, yet people still look for ways out of the "inconvenience" of, say, having to see women nurse in public (gasp!).
I love science, but if we're really smart we'd put less energy into trying to duplicate human milk, and look for more ways to support, assist, & enable nursing mothers.
Multiple Sclerosis (Score:4, Informative)
Formula manufacturers have been trying to replicate human milk for YEARS without success. Milk is more than chemicals. It's hormones, it's enzymes, it changes based on what illnesses the mother is currently making antibodies for, it even changes from morning to night. ...
Indeed.
Another issue with cow vs. human milk is risk of Multiple Sclerosis. Feeding cow milk to human infants drastically increases that risk.
MS is an autoimmune reaction against the myelin sheaths of nerves. Much of the avoidance of autoimmune reactions is done soon after birth, when the differentiated immune cells take a "grand tour" and those that recognize the body's own structures commit suicide. But myelin sheaths is one of a handfull of things not present until after this period. So it avoids attack later by having a "I'm special, don't attack me." sequence coded into the protein, next to its major antigenic region.
There's a protein in milk that has the same sequence. Unfortunately, the bovine version of the protein is slightly different in that region. So heavy exposure to cow's milk (perhaps in combination with other factors) occasionally leads to the immune system missing the signal, becoming sensitized to the myelin protein, and eventually attacking and destroying the nerve sheaths, creating one of the forms of MS.
To prevent this, some recombinant cattle have been created that express the human, rather than the bovine, version of the protein in question. Expected result, if this were to become the norm in dairy herds: No more risk of MS from drinking cow's milk than from drinking human milk.
At least for people. Calves might occasionally get MS as a result, unless the rest of the systems in question are also replaced with the human version.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you want a technological solution that really works for every case, we could at least make milk donation cheap & easy. Right now there are less than 20 HMBANA milk banks in North America, a lot of major cities are hours away from one. Private donation websites like eatsonfeets and milkshare often have more donors than people searching for milk, since private donation is under-publicized and depends on recipients screening milk themselves by reviewing medical records... I don't blame it for be
China Agricultural University (Score:2)
So.... will they engineer cows (Score:2)
that can produce melamine in the milk by themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers.
Yes, but (Score:2)
Sure, I see the scientific prowess, I can even sort of appreciate it... But am I the only one to find it disturbing, to say the least, that we reprogram other animals to suit our needs rather than adapt our ways of life or ourselves ?
Re: (Score:3)
What is the difference between drinking 'normal' cow milk and 'human-modified' that makes it seem so disturbing? I don't see how this is any different to eating goats cheese, as an example. Now - if they were talking about modifying dog milk then I might just find it slightly worrying.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, maybe the fact that the milk comes from a cow which is a clone that has been mutated to a express a human protein, rather than just milk coming from a “normal” cow or goat, which is then curded to make cheese (for which several methods exist).
And for that matter, if you think about it, adult weaned human beings drinking “normal” cow-milk is sort of disturbing too.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to assume that 1/ I haven't thought about this, and 2/ that I don't find it disturbing. :)
I understand how domestication of various other species has helped ours reach the pinnacle of development where it is now, that doesn't mean we need to keep on doing it nor does it mean we should be doing it in such drastic and, dare I say, shocking ways.
Truth be told, Shar Peis are abominations of nature that wouldn't last a week in a natural environment, no matter how damn fuzzy fuzzy cute cute they are. (I
Breastfeed? (Score:1)
Awesome, now we can genetically engineer mutant cows that express human proteins - we can build an industry of these mutant cows that supply human proteins into a global distribution network, shipping product overseas in tremendous tankers and transports and delivered by truck to retail locations across the globe...
Or, you know, we could just breastfeed our kids.
Re:Breastfeed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, you know, we could just breastfeed our kids.
Not every woman is able to breastfeed. Whether because they are taking medication for an illness, have had surgery or some medical condition that makes breastfeeding very unlikely if not downright impossible, or some other reason. These women are already being denied a major bonding experience between themselves and their baby(and this can be very traumatic for some women), why should their babies have to suffer by being given less healthy formula when it's possible for them to get something akin to human breast milk?
And Now (Score:1)
The product must come in a shape resembling half a grapefruit, be skin colored and warm and flexible to the touch. Teenage boys will love the product.
However there is a reality that any product that assists in reproduction or the survival of babies is the last thing this world needs. There is a population bomb and it is already killing us.
i didn't rtfs (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The title implies that the chinese made human-like milk which produces cows.
In fact the thumbnail image for the summary on the main page is a picture of these cows. They are sassy and fabulous.
multimeric alpha-lactalbumin? (Score:1)
All milk contains the protein alpha-lactalbumin, but only human breast milk contains the multimeric form (just means the protein has more than one peptide chain).
A decade of studies by Dr. Catharina Svanborg at Lund University in Sweden have demonstrated that human breast milk has efficacy against many forms of cancer, and that the agent responsible is multimeric alpha-lactalbumin. This unique protein selectively destroys malignant cells in two ways: by apoptosis on contact, and when morphologically transfo
America upstaged them long ago with cow-like women (Score:1)
Being fat and producing tainted milk from eating processed crap is one job that won't be going overseas.
Re: (Score:2)
drink up - you won't have choice (Score:1)
Misleading title (Score:1)
oh noos (Score:2)
But does it contain melamine?
Won't someone think of the calves! (Score:2)
Without natural cow's milk, they'll be moooving on to greener pastures.
"I don't wanna drink it. You drink it." (Score:2)
"...well I don't want it. You said you wanted it."
"Not me. I don't want it. You drink it...."
Why the cow? (Score:2)
Seriously, why can't we have a chemical process such that I empty the lawnmower in, and get milk/cheese/cream out? That would be hugely beneficial, and have major benefits for environment, food supply, and vegans.
Me gusta (Score:1)
Read it and weep (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Coffee with just sugar sounds great, but thanks.