Science

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 14° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Creation of 'GM' monkey heralds health revolution

Gene breakthrough offers hope of treatments for 'incurable' Parkinson's disease and MS

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Scientists yesterday announced a breakthrough that could transform research into a range of incurable diseases but spark a dramatic increase in the number of monkeys used in experiments. Researchers have developed a technique to create genetically modified monkeys that suffer from human illnesses.

Experimenting on these monkeys, they believe, will advance our understanding and treatment of incurable conditions such as Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. However, the scientific breakthrough has caused consternation among groups opposed to animal experiments because the development will almost certainly lead to a sudden increase in the number of primates used in medical research at a time when there are calls for fewer monkeys to be used in experiments.

The development also raises the prospect that we will be able to apply the technique to humans – another primate. This could help families affected by inherited disorders such Huntington's disease and cystic fibrosis by permenantly eradicating their defective genes from future generations.

The breakthrough was achieved by a team of scientists in Japan led by Erika Sasaki of the Central Institute of Experimental Animals in Kawasaki and Professor Hideyuki Okano of Keio University School of Medicine. Their study, published in the journal Nature, used marmoset monkeys, the smallest member of the primate group.

The "transgenic" monkeys were created by inserting a gene from a jellyfish into their embryos to make them glow under ultraviolet light – a standard test to see if the technique worked. When the monkeys became adults they passed on this transgenic trait to a subsequent generation of offspring. This "proof of principle" suggests that other genes could also be manipulated to create animals that mimic human disorders. This is already possible in mice.

"The expression of an introduced gene was discovered not only in the first generation of common marmosets after introduction, but also in a second. This is the first case ever established in the world than an introduced gene was successfully inherited to the next generation in primates," Professor Okano said.

"Until now, the use of mice and rats has played an important role in life science research of transgenic animals but to conduct research on human illnesses, experiments with primates, animals markedly closer to humans functionally and anatomically than rodents, have become necessary," he said.

The scientists managed to inject the jellyfish gene into 80 marmoset IVF embryos which were transferred into 50 surrogate mothers. Seven animals became pregnant and four of them gave birth to five live babies.

All five offspring were transgenic animals carrying the jellyfish gene, which caused the production of a green fluorescent protein in the skin of the monkeys which made their hands glow under ultraviolet light.

Most importantly, the scientists demonstrated that the jellyfish gene had become incorporated into the reproductive cells of two of the five marmosets – the sperm of a male and the eggs of a female – both of which subsequently produced a second generation of marmosets carrying the transgenic gene.

It is this breakthrough that could now lead to the establishment of breeding colonies of transgenic monkeys that are each specifically engineered with genes that simulate the symptoms of human disorders to allow them to be used as experimental models, just as transgenic mice have been used in their millions over the past 20 years.

"However, in many cases, research results obtained in mice cannot be directly applied to humans because of the many physiological, anatomical and histological difference between mice and humans, which are evolutionarily distinct," Professor Okano said.

"For this reason, research using primates as experimental animals that more closely resemble humans in function and anatomy is required," he said.

The sentiment was echoed by Kieran Breen, director of research and development at the Parkinson's Disease Society. "This is potentially very exciting for the future of research into the cause of Parkinson's. Because non-human primates are much closer to humans than mice genetically, the successful creation of transgenic marmosets means that we will have a new animal model to work with," Dr Breen said.

However, animal welfare organisations yesterday condemned the research on the grounds that it will lead to an increase in the use of primates at a time when many European countries are trying to reduce the numbers used in scientific experiments.

"It is of high scientific and ethical concern that the creation of transgenic marmosets should be hailed as a success. These experiments will only increase the number of non-human primates subjected to experiments around the globe," said Carol Newman of the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research.

The creation of the first transgenic mouse in the 1980s led to an dramatic increase in the use of laboratory mice during the 1990s. In 1990, there were less than 50,000 experiments involving transgenic mice in Britain – a mere 1.5 per cent of the total – but by 2007 the number of transgenic mice used in experiments grew to more than 1.1 million, according to Home Office statistics.

Why are these experiments important to science?

Q. What have the scientists done?

A. They introduced a jellyfish gene into the DNA of marmoset monkeys when they were embryos. When these monkeys became adults they produced offspring that also carried the foreign gene – the first time a "transgenic" primate has produced transgenic offspring.

Q. But haven't scientists already created transgenic monkeys?

A. Yes, in 2001 the world's first transgenic monkey, called Andi, was created using the jellyfish gene. But the gene was not incorporated into his sperm.

Q. Why is it important to pass on transgenic traits to offspring?

A. Scientists want to establish breeding colonies of transgenic monkeys that are each created as biomedical models of human disorders such as Parkinson's disease or diabetes. If the trait is passed on through normal breeding it avoids the enormous expense of creating each transgenic animal from scratch.

Q. Why was the jellyfish gene used?

A. It is purely a "marker" that allows scientists to see quickly whether their technique has worked. The gene from the jellyfish produces a green fluorescent protein that glows under ultraviolet light. By shining UV light on the animals, scientists can immediately see whether they have successfully introduced the foreign gene into the animal.

Q. Is the breakthrough a cause for celebration?

A. It could soon lead to the creation of better and more accurate animal "models" of human disease because monkeys are closer to humans than mice. It means that medical researchers could test new drugs and treatments and gain a better understanding of incurable human disorders. Opponents argue, however, that animals are not a good model of human illnesses, and the research will only lead to more primates being used in experiments.

Q. Are there any other implications of the research?

A. Being able to manipulate the reproductive cells of primates will inevitably raise the question of whether we can do the same – safely – in humans. This "germline" gene therapy is illegal in Britain because it was considered too dangerous. But if it can be shown to be safe in our closest animal relatives, there could be calls to reconsider its use to eliminate inherited conditions permanently from affected families.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Permenantly
[info]random_girl01 wrote:
Wednesday, 27 May 2009 at 11:21 pm (UTC)
"permenantly"? Doesn't the author employ a spell-checker?
Exciting
[info]remy_germain wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 12:01 am (UTC)
Exciting
Slow and steady wins the race
Re: Exciting
[info]pduffy4 wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 05:21 am (UTC)
You are a fool! This is totally disgusting!
Re: Exciting - [info]theelectrician - Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 06:52 am (UTC) Expand
Glow in the dark people
[info]garyl123 wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 04:55 am (UTC)
I would like to volunteer to be the 1st transgenic person to glow in the dark. That way I would not have to turn on the lights at night, saving me lots of money.
Re: Glow in the dark people
[info]blobbox wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 05:24 am (UTC)
;-O)
Totaly criminal insane!
[info]pduffy4 wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 05:19 am (UTC)
The so called scientists who have made genetically modified monkey should be jailed for life!

If it were not for GM food and vaccines we would not be getting ill so much!

These scientists are criminally insane.

The Independent should be condemning this insanity.

This is torture of animals and as such totally unlawful.

Re: Totaly criminal insane!
[info]theelectrician wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 06:59 am (UTC)
I have a strong feeling that your statements are not about facts, they are about your feelings and desires.

Have you contacted the relevant authorities to report this activity, which you describe as 'illegal'? Are you a psychiatrist who is qualified and experienced in such a way as to determine that someone is criminally insane? Please contact the relevant authorities, I suggest the Kawasaki police would be your first point of contact; or the Japanese embassy nearest to you to make sure you do it properly.
Re: Totaly criminal insane! - [info]matth_v - Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 08:38 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Totaly criminal insane! - [info]had_it - Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 10:08 am (UTC) Expand
This research must be allowed
[info]blobbox wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 05:23 am (UTC)
"This could help families affected by inherited disorders such Huntington's disease and cystic fibrosis by permenantly eradicating their defective genes from future generations."

No more justification needed. My brother died from complications after two lung transplants within the space of 48 hours, in 1990 this was his only chance of survival as a Cystic Fibrosis sufferer. Within 5 years advances meant that my life-long concern about having children of my own and passing-on the gene, though not a sufferer, was allayed by the development of gene testing - I was found to be completely clear of the gene and realised just how lucky I am and how unlucky he was.

In 1960 CF was only just discovered and defined as a genetic illness, my brother wasn't diagnosed until he was 6, the constant coughing an ongoing concern for my parents that ten years before would have seen children dying under the diagnosis of 'consumption'.

Research into CF has been done since then entirely without government funding - one of the only diseases not to have received it I believe - a heresy when you realise it is the most common inherited genetic diseases in the world.

The final step is waiting to be made here. In less time than what would have been my brother's normal lifespan if he hadn't been a sufferer, the cure for a disease that brough great sadness and suffering to him and my family can be eliminated from the human experience forever.

I think I can cope with the thought of lab monkeys having to suffer the ignominious existence that is their lot in exchange for knowing that other families of human beings, millions of unborn souls of the future, won't ever know it at all.

Overall, this is a story of how medical science really does have the power to change peoples lives for the better.

Any counter arguments are completely fraudelent - it's a sad fact of life that humans are the master here and I dare say that if it were the other way around, we'd be on the slab under the eye and blade of Dr. Cornelius ourselves!


Re: This research must be allowed
[info]theelectrician wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 07:08 am (UTC)
"...I think I can cope with the thought of lab monkeys having to suffer the ignominious existence that is their lot ..."

Oh yes, the rest of the world is there for your convenience. I'm part of the rest of the world and I disagree with your stance. I don't care about you and your brother. There are many millions of humans on this planet and it wouldn't bother me at all to see large numbers of them go. Large numbers go every day and the human world keeps ticking over nicely.

Re: This research must be allowed - [info]blobbox - Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 11:50 am (UTC) Expand
Re: This research must be allowed - [info]theelectrician - Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 12:48 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: This research must be allowed - [info]gibby1 - Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 12:27 pm (UTC) Expand
cream that makes the monkeys young. BOOTS are you there.
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 06:08 am (UTC)
Scientists yesterday announced a breakthrough that could transform research into a range of incurable diseases but spark a dramatic increase in the number of monkeys used in experiments. Off go the Pakis and in come the monkeys We need these as they can climb the trees , throw the grenades and jump fast before the UK police come, as it is they came faster then 7/7 and G20 man dead. Then we look for food .Researchers have developed a technique to create genetically modified monkeys that suffer from human illnesses. I love to see the animals asking for, ?More please, sir?, eating bananas and showing the twenty dozen shells of the coconuts. We are losing the oil.
Experimenting on these monkeys, they believe, will advance our understanding and treatment of incurable conditions such as Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. I know this. They are the delicacies in the Thailand. The monkey comes in the hand of the waiter. You see this alive. You nod if this is of the right weight, size, and the waiter takes a hammer and cracks the head in front of you while this cells still go up down , up down. Then you pay the bill if they do not go up, down,
However, the scientific breakthrough has caused consternation among groups opposed to animal experiments because the development will almost certainly lead to a sudden increase in the number of primates used in medical research at a time when there are calls for fewer monkeys to be used in experiments. I agree to this also. We have no cash to pay for the brains. I told you. Monkeys are stupid. We cannot pay for them and they go alive. See. What a shame.
I still think of the cream that makes the monkeys young. BOOTS are you there.
I thank you.
Firozali A.Mulla
Seems like a limited use
[info]feliznav wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 06:29 am (UTC)
Considering it already takes months of work and thousands of dollars to create a custom ordered transgenic mouse, in a primate that would translate into years of work and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to produce a single line of custom transgenic monkeys. I would like to know what lab has that much time and money to be able to sink into this kind of venture? Until its more cost effective I am sure all those wonderful applications people are thinking of are going to be little more than science fiction along with cloning.
GM MOnkey
[info]claytal wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 06:35 am (UTC)
Yet again living cretures have to suffer in the intersts of humans and big business. This is obscene,utterly obscene.
Re: GM MOnkey
[info]blobbox wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 11:53 am (UTC)
do you think you'd be alive today without all those animal experiments? flu? measles? chicken pox? tb? black plague? perhaps you'd prefer to have a lifespan of around 35? honestly, some people don't even know they are born.......
RE: Creation of 'GM' monkey heralds health revolution
[info]kedico76 wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 06:45 am (UTC)
I have MS, and as much as the thought of my progressive debilitation scares me to the core, the only thing worse is knowing that other species are being enslaved in the cause to treat me.
Scientists have a growing arsenal of computer technology that allows them to understand ever more complex systems in the universe. Why can't the basic principles of that technology be used for health research? Why isn't the emphasis on creating experimental pathways that are much more accurate, i.e. computer modeling that represents the complicated makeup of the human body, and in turn much more ethical?
Re: Creation of 'GM' monkey heralds health revolution
[info]matth_v wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
Scientists are already modelling biochemical pathways, it's called "system biology". The trouble is that 1) this is very theoretical and requires confirmation in vivo and 2) the systems currently modelled are very simple, whilst growing multicellular organisms are hugely complex.
Uber-genetic health...
[info]bogless wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 06:58 am (UTC)
...will inevitably lead to overpopulation of the human species and eventual and also inevitable collapse of its civilization.

This old well-known prospect of our fate has gradually become as of late a clearly and terrifyingly realized truth. A simple truth too at that the improvement, extension, and complete advancement of human life by means of curing diseases, now including genetic, have always been among the central goals of our race. They will always be what seems natural and rational to us and morally true beyond reasonable doubt. We can project their advances now into near future using our knowledge of how realization of these creeds has progressed and how it has evolved.

What we have a glimpse of inspires dread. We're not, however, terrified by the details of our scenario - apocalypse is a zeitgeist - nor are we by that we're absolutely certain now that the collapse will happen, not if, not might, or could - will, unequivocally.

What frightens us is a lack of time to develop affordable technologies necessary to populate other planets. The overpopulated humanity is thus left with the one and only form of controlling its growth - the human birth rate.

How gloomy indeed.
I hope
[info]minib1 wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 07:32 am (UTC)
that everyone opposed to the creation of these monkeys for research is also equally opposed to the creation of human embryos for medical research. Or are ear;y development human beings not as worthy of protection as marmosets?
Re: I hope
[info]doc_eco wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 12:13 pm (UTC)
"Or are early development human beings not as worthy of protection as marmosets?"

yes, they are. And marmosets are as worthy of protection as (early development) human beings
drug which nearly killed particpants proved safe on monkeys
[info]mind_ful wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 08:00 am (UTC)
testing drugs on monkeys is pointless and arguabley abuse of a fellow-primate species which like (most of) us is highly intelligent. The recent episode in which the 6 participants nearly died and one lost his fingers etc. showed this, as the drug had previously been tested on primates who had shown no side effects. At least that is what the pharmaceutical company responsible said. There is no way making a lot of monkeys ill will explain how to prevent chronic disease. It is a question of undestanding what has caused the immune system to degenerate and the answers are often drugs, and the enviornment as much as genes. Its time to give up lookiing for genes and trying to manipulate them and look to eniovrnmental practices instead. Japan is becoming a menage in terms of animal cruelty - first whaling and now this.
Re: drug which nearly killed particpants proved safe on monkeys
[info]adampooler wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 12:57 pm (UTC)
Given that the cause of some diseases is genetic, and others are caused or at least triggered by social/environmental factors, it would surely make sense to continue exploring both avenues, don't you think?

Your assertion that all conditions are caused by 'degeneration of the immune system' is nonsense. I would suggest looking up the causes of conditions such as cystic fibrosis, for example, to understand why the research would be useful.
Ethically and morally completely wrong
[info]astrid_h wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 08:01 am (UTC)
It is ethically and morally wrong, whatever the outcome or the reasons for it.

We are finally becoming more and more aware that other animals suffer just as much mentally, emotionally and physically as we do. We have no right to harm them in any way. The fact that we can and that we therefore do, does not make it justifiable in any way. There's no greater good to be gained when it causes suffering.

Besides, we would never ever accept the same reasoning if we were the victims by the hands of others, would we?

Moral Certainties.
[info]chiennoir wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 08:05 am (UTC)
This is a good thread. It has thrown up a lot of very interesting ethical conundrums. Some people, of course, will always think they have all the answers. Moral certainty is one of the banes of the world we live in. However, when one person's moral certainty goes head to head with somebody else, interesting sparks start to fly. Keep it up everyone!
Re: Moral Certainties.
[info]astrid_h wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 01:28 pm (UTC)
There are no moral certainties, but what makes us human is the fact that we have (or are capable of having/developing) morals and ethics.

It's the same old expression again: "the ends justify the means", but always only pronounced by the ones who are not 'the means'. Because if they do, we call them terrorists, don't we...?

Now there's an interesting conundrum!
GM Monkeys
[info]stevescrutton wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 08:18 am (UTC)
Ahhh! More promises by ConMed! As usual, conventional medicine will be able to treat disease successfully - SOON. And what they are doing to achieve this just gets more bizarre as time goes on.

Pity they can't do anything to treat disease NOW (c/r another article, rise in Type 1 diabetes)
Why treat a preventable disease?
[info]drlizmiller wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 08:36 am (UTC)
Why treat something that is preventable with a healthy lifestyle?

Personally I would prefer not to get it, and we know enough to prevent just about everyone getting it! This is a Disease of Western Civilisation. It is one of the remarkable ways a human body degenerates when faced with the modern western lifestyle and the modern western diet.

Eat healthy, have two large soft bowel motions a day, squat to give birth and take daily exercise. Not a lot to ask!
Re: Why treat a preventable disease?
[info]matth_v wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 08:42 am (UTC)
What do you refer to by "preventable"? Some diseases are carried by our genes. We'll eventually get them whether we live healthily or not. You can have the healthiest of bodies and still get cancer, alzheimer and so on...
Re: Why treat a preventable disease? - [info]zhe_xi - Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 10:19 am (UTC) Expand
An idea
[info]bevfor wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 08:46 am (UTC)
All people with genes (dominant or recessive) for any serious disease should simply not breed - less humans, less ill humans. Win win. Being 'healthy' and not breeding is a great idea too!
Re: An idea
[info]matth_v wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 11:42 am (UTC)
Ah ah ah. That idea was in vogue around 1930-1945... maybe not then
Re: An idea - [info]bevfor - Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC) Expand
movement disorder disorder
[info]scot_in_canada wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC)
Drlizmiller: Eh? Preventable Parkinson's? Tell that to all of the patients currently suffering from this dreadful, degenerative disease. Or maybe your recommended treatment is as you described, which is why your patients suffer with this dreadful, degenerative disease.
Our western lifestyle is certainly unhealthy but I know of no study which shows it causes Parkinson's Disease. Maybe you can point me in this direction with a link.
Animals that glow in the dark?
[info]thenomen wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC)
...thats not a health revoltution, thats a sickness.
How dare they?
[info]had_it wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 09:58 am (UTC)
How many thousand monkeys need to die to save millions of humans from pain, misery, debilitation and early death.

Surely the waste of one monkey is not redeemed by saving 100,000 people, is it?
Relax this too will fizzle down. The monkeys are safe and we are safe.
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC)
I see no reason to the test tube babies? projects halt or stalled. Relax this too will fizzle down. The monkeys are safe and we are safe.
I thank you.
Firozali A.Mulla
Animal testing
[info]leamutt wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 11:05 am (UTC)

I do feel sorry for these animals and encourage all scientists to ensure the bare minimum are harmed but if this is what it takes then im afraid it is a price worth paying. As other commentators have stated it will be expensive to create these monkeys so I am sure the threat of numbers is overstated.

It is easy to get carried away with animal rights until your nearest and dearest suffer the consequences of these terrible illnesses. We must have a more balanced approach to this whereby activists are encouraged to maintain the monkeys in the best possible conditions so that there pain is minimised without the hysterical banning of these vital experiments.

It is no surprise that this is happening abroad where the tend to be less emotional with regard to animal rights. I fear that the UK will be held back as a result of not being able to freely pursue vital medicines.
I just wish
[info]bobbellinhell wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)
That this sort of story didn't creep me out so much.
Monkey to man research
[info]jackolantyrn356 wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)
The Eugenics movement will love this one. This smells of so much that is truely evil. Here we are trying to develop a healing agent for the few while destroying the millions and doing it all on a lesser being. Where is Dr, Jane when you need her.
Aren't we grand!
[info]drahcir38 wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC)
Do monkeys feel pain? Yes. Do monkeys feel fear? Yes. Are monkeys capable of learning from their peers and from other animals? Yes. Do monkeys have the ability to know what is dangerous and avoid it? Yes. Do monkeys have language? Yes. Does that make them sentient beings? Yes.

A human child possesses these same qualties. But you wouldn't dream of putting a child through risk, fear and torture would you? So why is it OK to do it to a monkey. Is it because we are so grand that we feel justified in saving ourselves from illness by using another species which is not as "important" as ourselves (mind you monkeys dont claim expenses do they)?

If you wouldn't do these things to a human child you shouldn't condone it in monkeys.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular