|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 11:10:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 11:15:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 11:18:26 GMT -5
Contribution of Agrobacterium to Morgellons Disease by MRF www.morgellons.org/aboutus.htmJanuary 14, 2007 Research update from Vitaly Citovsky, Ph.D. Our continuing screen of additional Morgellons patients has identified Agrobacterium genetic material in three additional individuals. Thus, all Morgellons patients screened to date have tested positive for the presence of Agrobacterium, whereas this microorganism has not been detected in any of the samples derived from the control, healthy individuals.
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 11:21:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 11:30:39 GMT -5
Common Plant Vector Injects Genes into Human Cells elonmerkki.net/dyn/forum/thread/?id=229A paper published earlier this year reports that T-DNA can be transferred to the chromosomes of human cancer cells [1]. In fact, Agrobacterium attaches to and genetically transforms several types of human cells. The researchers found that in stably transformed HeLa cells, the integration event occurred at the right border of the Ti plasmid's T-DNA, exactly as would happen when it is being transferred into a plant cell genome. This suggests that Agrobacterium transforms human cells by a mechanism similar to that which it uses for transformation of plants cells.
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 11:39:06 GMT -5
Trans-kingdom transfer of effector proteins from bacteria to plants and animals including humans through the Type 4 secretion system may not be uncommon. There are a number of other human pathogenic microbes that do such transfers (Table 1)11,13. But what is more striking is that the soil phytopathogen, Agrobacterium, is the only one example wherein trans-kingdom (T-)DNA transfer takes place in plants (and now in humans too) using the same Type 4 secretion system. Also, Agrobacterium represents the best characterized member in the group in terms of Type 4 secretion system (and, of course, best utilized for plant genetic engineering and transgenosis)14. The successful research attempts to make human cells also susceptible to Agrobacterium infection and T-DNA transfer opens up new interesting areas coupled with fresh batches of questions that demand greater validations and interpretations. Similarly, already there are expressed apprehensions by a few anti-genetic engineering groups, globally, regarding the biosafety concerns of using Agrobacterium. As per the available information, these concerns are misplaced as there are no reports to indicate that humans (as opposed to cell lines) are transformable by Agrobacterium. The research findings of Citovsky’s group that only a few proteins may be necessary for human cells to uptake specific foreign DNA coupled with the everburgeoning information on Agrobacterium molecular biology, general biology of the Type 4 secretion system and molecular relatedness of Agrobacterium and other human pathogens including Bartonella – are all leading to a very exciting period. New breakthroughs can be anticipated in our understanding of the role of the Type 4 secretion system in microbial pathogenesis and its application in the genetic transformation of plant and human cells. www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct102004/856.pdfmore here
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 11:45:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 11:55:49 GMT -5
University of Newcastle Research on the Transfer of DNA from GM Food Into Bacteria in the Human GutSummary In July 2002, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) put the results of new research on its website which showed that genetically modified DNA material moves out of GM food and into human gut bacteria. These were the result of the first known human trial of GM food, carried out by the University of Newcastle and they disproved claims by the biotechnology industry. Although the findings were surprising and some scientists expressed concerns, the FSA denied that the study was significant. The research was published in Nature Biotechnology in January 2004. We believe that in the absence of research showing otherwise, this means that the safety of GM food is in doubt; the approval procedures for GMOs are inadequate; and that the FSA is not taking a precautionary, science-based approach to the safety of GM foods or adequately informing the public or Government of the uncertainties. www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/DNA-Transfer-To-Gut1jul05.htm
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 11:57:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ::gazal:: on Feb 2, 2007 12:39:15 GMT -5
Great good work Ali!
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 12:53:31 GMT -5
these people hold the patent on Agrobacterium www.patentlens.net/daisy/AgroTran/767/g7/g3/996.htmlThe present invention disclosed by Monsanto relates to the control of Agrobacterium growth during the transformation process in order to improve transformation efficiency. The use of inhibiting agents during inoculation and co-culture of Agrobacterium with a transformable plant cell results, according to the inventors, in increased transformation efficiencies and a low copy number of the introduced genetic component in several plant systems. Preferred growth inhibiting agents are compounds containing heavy metals such as silver nitrate or silver thiosulfate, antibiotics such as carbenicillin, and a combination of antibiotics and a clavulanic acid such as augmentin or timentin They also know how how to switch this off
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 12:59:19 GMT -5
perhaps that is why people with Morgellons have reported some relief in NutraSilver...........and SOME PEOPLE report after taking the antibiotics above seem to go into remission.....problem? Go off the meds, it comes back. There is an ON/OFF switch. And I want to turn it OFF forever.
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 13:08:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 13:41:12 GMT -5
mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/147/4/929/F8Fig. 8. Above and side view images of a B. subtilis macrofibre ball structure showing fibres protruding from its periphery in contact with the floor of the growth chamber. A right-handed fibre was grown in TB medium containing magnesium at 24 °C in a glass growth chamber and allowed to develop into a ball structure. A dual-view video film showing fibre motions was produced. The large fibre protruding from the surface of the ball towards the right in this frame repeatedly struck the floor and caused the ball structure to pivot. Bars, 0·5 mm.
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 18:32:31 GMT -5
EPA DOCUMENT REFERING TO THE DNA ALTERING STRAIN K1026 Agrobacterium radiobacter strain K1026 was derived from K84 by marker exchange mutagenesis, during which a precise region of the genome is deleted through homologous recombination (exchange of genetic material based on alignment of identical DNA sequences). During this process, the only likely change is the removal of a defined piece of DNA from the original strain. In the present case, a section of DNA containing much of the region controlling the conjugational transfer of DNA between K84 and other bacterial strains was removed. K84 has the ability to transfer, to plant pathogenic Agrobacterium spp., DNA conferring immunity to a K84 biocontrol factor (agrocin 84). This trait could potentially limit the usefulness of K84 in some circumstances, and has been eliminated or greatly reduced in K1026. MORE HERE www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/tech_docs/tech_006474.htm#IV.%20PUBLIC%20INTEREST
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 2, 2007 18:39:21 GMT -5
Agrobacterium radiobacter strain K1026, is a simple deletion mutant of the naturally-occurring Agrobacterium radiobacter strain K84. Agrobacterium radiobacter is not known as an aquatic bacterium, and therefore, is not expected to proliferate in aquatic habitats. Although the potential exists for some minimal amount of the applied Agrobacterium radiobacter strain K1026 to enter ground water or other drinking water sources, the amount present, in all probability, would be undetectable or at least several order of magnitude lower than those levels tested for safety. Also, drinking water is not screened for Agrobacterium radiobacter strain K1026 as potential microbial contaminant or a direct pathogenic contaminant. However, the municipal treatment of drinking water would further reduce the possibility of exposure to Agrobacterium radiobacter strain K1026 through drinking water. Therefore, the Agency considers the potential of significant transfer of Agrobacterium radiobacter strain K1026 to drinking water as minimal to nonexistent
OH REALLY?
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 6, 2007 2:15:11 GMT -5
old article but a good one about quorum-sensing and agrobacterium Molecular census-taking also is thought to occur in more than 70 other types of microorganisms, including bioluminescent bacteria, which together produce light from a chemical reaction but alone must remain dark. Among human pathogens that use quorum sensing to estimate their population densities are Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which can cause serious infections, particularly in burn victims, and Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium that killed millions during the Middle Ages. Whatever the mechanism, it appears to be a vital pathway in a single, free-floating bacterium's attempt to collaborate with others of its kind. Thanks to techniques developed by the Cornell-Argonne team to purify the A. tumefaciens protein and solve its structure with X-ray crystallography, workers at other laboratories can now try to find the structure of different proteins in other bacteria and design specific treatments to interrupt or enhance the quorum-sensing process. Whatever the mechanism, it appears to be a vital pathway in a single, free-floating bacterium's attempt to collaborate with others of its kind. Thanks to techniques developed by the Cornell-Argonne team to purify the A. tumefaciens protein and solve its structure with X-ray crystallography, workers at other laboratories can now try to find the structure of different proteins in other bacteria and design specific treatments to interrupt or enhance the quorum-sensing process. www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/02/7.11.02/quorum-sensing.html
|
|
|
Post by skytroll on Feb 7, 2007 12:52:34 GMT -5
aligator, I was going to start a thread on B. Subtilis, agrobacterium, would add E-coli to that too and on connections between food we eat and the gut transformations that are taking place. I think all these agencies are involved and this plan for bioremediation etc. Will post what has been going over in my mind lately: www.metabolicengineering.gov/five_year_plan2.htmand EPA's final take on this: I think we have the EPA over a barrel! Catching them in lies and coverups: According to above posts seems they are speaking two languages! Compare to final say, here........ ........4. Measure of the Degree of Virulence B. subtilis appears to have a low degree of virulence to humans. It does not produce significant quantities of extracellular enzymes or possess other virulence factors that would predispose it to cause infection (Edberg, 1991). There are a number of reports where B. subtilis has been isolated from human infections. Earlier literature contains references to infections caused by B. subtilis. However, as previously stated,the term B. subtilis was synonymous for any aerobic sporeforming bacilli, and quite possibly, many of these infections were associated with B. cereus. In a recent British review article, Logan (1988) cites more recent cases of B. subtilis infections in which identification of the bacterium appeared reliable. Infections include a case of endocarditis in a drug abuse patient; fatal pneumonia and bacteremia in three leukemic patients; septicemia in a patient with breast cancer; and infection of a necrotic axillary tumor in another breast cancer patient. Isolation of B. subtilis was also made from surgical wound-drainage sites, from a subphrenic abscess from a breast prosthesis, and from two ventriculo-atrial shunt infections (as cited by Logan, 1988). Reviews of Bacillus infections from several major hospitals suggest that B. subtilis is an organism with low virulence. Idhe and Armstrong (1973) reported that Bacillus infections were encountered only twelve times over a 6-1/2 year period. Species identification of these Bacillus infections was not made. In another hospital study over a 6-yr. period, only two of the 24 cases of bacteremia caused by Bacillus (of a total of 1,038 cases) were due to B. subtilis (as cited by Edberg, 1991). Many of these patients were immunocompromised or had long term indwelling foreign bodies such as a Hickman catheter. B. subtilis has also been implicated in several cases of food poisoning (Gilbert et al., 1981 and Kramer et al., 1982 as cited by Logan, 1988). As previously mentioned, B. subtilis produces a number of enzymes, including subtilisin, for use in laundry detergent products. There have been a number of cases of allergic or hypersensitivity reactions, including dermatitis and respiratory distress after the use of these laundry products (Norris et al., 1981). 5. Conclusions . Conclusions B. subtilis is not a human pathogen, nor is it toxigenic like some other members of the genus. The virulence characteristics of the microorganism are low. According to Edberg (1991) either the number of microorganisms challenging the individual must be very high or the immune status of the individual very low in order for infection with B. subtilis to occur. B. Environmental Hazards 1. Hazards to Animals B. subtilis has been isolated from a number of cases of bovine and ovine abortions, however, the microorganism has neverbeen identified as the causal agent (Logan, 1988). Reports on association of B. subtilis with livestock abortions are fairly rare, and of much lower frequency than with other Bacillus species, which are rare compared to all other microorganisms, especially viruses and fungi. B. subtilis has also been reported in 17 cases of bovine mastitis in which it was thought to be the causal agent (Fossum et al., 1986). However, the limited number of cases of mastitis associated with B. subtilis also is rare compared to mastitis caused by other microorganisms. B. subtilis has also been shown to be capable of infecting and causing mortality of the 2nd instar larvae of the mosquito, Anophelis culicifacies, which is the primary insect vector of malaria in central India (Gupta and Vyas, 1989). B. subtilis was being investigated for use as a biocontrol agent in this study. 2. Hazards to Plants B. subtilis is not considered to be a plant pathogen (7 CFR 330, et seq.; Claus and Berkeley, 1986). However, there are several reports in the literature that associate B. subtilis with certain plant diseases. Kararah et al. (1985) produced soft rot of garlic cloves by injecting B. subtilis into them. Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology notes that pectin and polysaccharides of plant tissues can be decomposed by B. subtilis and that this microorganism can cause soft rot of potato tubers (Claus and Berkeley, 1986). There are several abstracts obtained in a literature review that suggests that B. subtilis may cause other plant diseases, however, no more information was obtainable. One abstract reported that B. subtilis was the cause of a broad open cancer ulcera on Norway maples in forests in the Urals (Yakovleva et al., 1990). Another reported that an organism tentatively identified as B. subtilis was consistently isolated from glasswort (Salicornia) plants suffering from a soft-rot disease (Stanghellini and Rasmussen, 1989). 3. Hazards to Other Microorganisms B. subtilis has been shown to produce a wide variety of antibacterial and antifungal compounds (Katz and Demain, 1977; Korzybski et al., 1978). It produces novel antibiotics such as difficidin and oxydifficidin that have activity against a wide spectrum of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria (Zimmerman et al., 1987) as well as more common antibiotics such as bacitracin, bacillin, and bacillomycin B (Parry et al., 1983). The use of B. subtilis as a biocontrol agent of fungal plant pathogens is being investigated because of the effects of antifungal compounds on Monilinia fructicola (McKeen et al., 1986), Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus (Kimura and Hirano, 1988), and Rhizoctonia (Loeffler et al., 1986). Although B. subtilis produces a variety of antibiotic compounds in culture media, the importance of antibiotic production in the environment is unknown (Alexander, 1977)...... ......... FROM: www.epa.gov/oppt/biotech/pubs/fra/fra009.htmOTHER LINKS, LB ONTO THIS TOO....... www.mcponline.org/cgi/content/full/5/2/347MORE LATER....... Skytroll
|
|
|
Post by skytroll on Feb 7, 2007 13:48:12 GMT -5
Why the increase in GI research? and the numbers of these docs attending conferences relating to dendrites? www.gastrohep.com/concalendar/www.ddw.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=175Some interesting papers: www.vet.purdue.edu/PeixuanGuo/publications.htmlConnect to hepatic portal vein: www.mcponline.org/cgi/content/full/5/2/347Continuous Molecular Evolution of Protein-Domain Structures by Single Amino Acid Changes www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982206024444Evaluating Proteomic Discovery: Finding Buried Treasure or Quicksand? www.gastro.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=2563Deep into DNA: www.genedb.org/genedb/smansoni/Wonder what the WNT will come up with in 2007? www.stanford.edu/~rnusse/wntwindow.htmlA few things to chew on......... Dendrites and dendrimers and "The Singularity is Near" Kurzweil, anyone? www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1507members.aol.com/charles000/alifeart/nanobioz.htmwww.biota.org/ostman/chpage8x.htmHow to measure fibers: www.bitplane.com/products/filamenttracer/filamenttracer_product.shtml?OVRAW=Dendrites&OVKEY=dendrites&OVMTC=standardReflecting the growth and interdisciplinary nature of materials science, the meeting's offerings included presentations in areas as diverse as nanophotonics and art conservation. As the following highlights suggest, there were plenty of offerings for chemists, with talks about dendrimers, carbon nanotubes, and click chemistry...... pubs.acs.org/cen/nanofocus/top/83/8301materials.htmlSome of these may not relate, but, one can see where this is going......... The Surprising Toxicology Of Nanoparticles Size Matters Size may have another crucial biological consequence: where nanoparticles end up in the body. A complex of physical factors such as aerodynamics, gravity, and mass causes the largest inhalable dust particles to deposit primarily in the nose and throat. Any toxic effects occur at that site (for example, nasal cancers due to wood dust). Smaller particles are deposited in upper airways and are expelled by the “mucosociliary escalator;” the fingerlike cilia and the mucous lining of the trachea and bronchial tubes, which together move particles up into the throat and nose, where they are coughed, sneezed, blown out, or swallowed. Any toxic effects usually result from absorption through the gut (lead poisoning for example). The next smallest particles penetrate deeper into the alveolar region (where oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged in and out of the blood) and are usually cleared when alveolar macrophages (special monocytic scavenger cells in the lungs) engulf the particles and carry them away. But if a high concentration of NSPs is inhaled, the sheer number of particles - especially if they do not agglomerate - can overwhelm those clearance mechanisms, and they can penetrate to different parts of the respiratory tract. Toxic effects are usually due to killing of the macrophages, which causes chronic inflammation that damages lung tissue (asbestosis and silicosis are examples). At sizes less than 100 nanometers, inhaled particles begin to behave more like gas molecules and can be deposited anywhere in the respiratory tract by diffusion. Like gases, NSPs—whether natural, incidental, or engineered—simply because of their “nanoscopic” size, can pass through the lungs into the bloodstream and to be taken up by cells, within hours reaching potentially sensitive sites such as bone marrow, liver, kidneys, spleen, and heart. As particles become small compared to the size of a cell, they can begin to interact with the molecular machinery of the cell. The central nervous system’s olfactory bulb (where aromatic molecules are detected) seems to be able to absorb NSPs smaller than 10 nm from the nasal cavity - which then can travel along axons and dendrites to cross the blood-brain barrier. Inhalation is not the only route into the body. When ingested, NSPs can end up in the liver, the spleen, and the kidneys. When touched, NSPs in the range of 50 nm and smaller tend to penetrate the skin more easily than larger particles (although other aspects such as charge and surface coatings of the particles are also important), sometimes, being taken up by the lymphatic system and localizing in the lymph nodes. (See Figure 3, below.) By the same token, the mucosociliary escalator is also not the only way out of the body. There is evidence suggesting that nanoparticles could be excreted through urine. However, excretion routes for nanoparticles (urine, feces, sweat) are likely to vary depending on exposure route, size, charge, surface coating, chemical composition, and many other factors. For incidental exposure, all this uptake of NSPs into internal organs could be of concern. But for therapeutic exposure, it is exciting, as it suggests that engineered nanomaterials can be used to target therapies to specific organs, even ones normally quite difficult to reach (such as the brain). So far, results from different investigators are more suggestive than definitive. More research needs to be done on methods of administration, means of uptake, and on the body’s clearance mechanisms. Also, when nanometer-sized particles are generated in combustion processes, most collide with other particles, are held together by the strong surface tension, and agglomerate into larger particles. The distribution of particles sizes will depend on the density of nanometer particles at the point of generation. One of the early priorities for nanotechnology health research is to gain a better understanding of the particle sizes that are likely to be associated with the production of engineered nanoparticles. Still, size is not the only thing that matters for potential toxicity. 3. BFigure iokinetics of nanoscale particles Nanoscale particles can end up in different parts of the body depending on size and other characteristics as well as routes of entry. Although many uptake and translocation routes have been demonstrated, others still are hypothetical and need to be investigated. Translocation rates are largely unknown, as are accumulation and retention in critical target sites and their underlying mechanisms. These, as well as potential adverse effects, largely depend on physicochemical characteristics of the surface and core of NSPs. Both qualitative and quantitative changes in NSP biokinetics in a diseased or compromised organism also need to be considered....... ....... www.azonano.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1694#_The_Surprising_Toxicology_Of%20NanopaSome of these may be posted, sorry if repeated.... Skytroll
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 7, 2007 13:55:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 7, 2007 14:25:34 GMT -5
The following is a list of 114 active ingredients currently subject to the WPS requirements that meet the lower toxicity criteria.
Acetylchitin Agrobacterium radiobacter Ampelomyces quisqualis isolate M-10 Azadirachtin (Neem extract) B. t. subsp. aizawai B. t. subsp. aizawai strain GC-91 B. t. subsp. israelensis B. t. subsp. kurstaki B. t. subsp. kurstaki HD-263 B. t. subsp. kurstaki strain EG2348 B. t. subsp. kurstaki strain EG2371 B. t. subsp. kurstaki strain EG2424 B. t. subsp. san diego B. t. subsp. tenebrionis Bacillus popilliae and B. lentimorbus Bacillus sphaericus Bacillus subtilis GB03 Bacillus subtilis MBI 600 BNOA (b-naphthoxy acetic acid) Borax Calcium hypochlorite Calcium oxytetracycline Calcium thiosulfate Candida oleophila Capsicum oleoresin "Checkmate" peach twig borer pheromone
Chitosan Chlorsulfuron Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Copper as ammonia complex Copper salts of fatty acids Cytokinin 2,4-DP, isooctyl
Diatomaceous earth Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate Disparlure Ethoxyquin
Ethylene Farnesol Fatty acids, C8-12, Methyl esters Fenridazone-potassium Fluazifop-butyl Fluazifop-r-butyl Gibberellic acid Gibberellins A4 and A7 Gliocladium virens G-21 Glyphosate, ammonium Glyphosate, isopropylamine Glyphosate, sodium Gossyplure: Hexadecadien-1-ol acetate Gypsy moth NPV Heavy aromatic naphtha Imazethapyr Imazethapyr, ammonium salt Indole-3-butyric acid Kinoprene Lagendidium giganteum, mycelium Mefluidide, diethanolamine Mefluidide, potassium salt Methoprene Methyl nonyl ketone Metsulfuron-methyl Milky spore Mineral oil Muscalure, component of (E)-9-Tricosene Muscalure, component of (Z)-9-Tricosene N-6-Benzyladenine NAA, Ethyl ester Nerolidol Nicosulfuron Nosema locustae Octyl bicycloheptenedicarboxamide Oxytetracycline hydrochloride Paradichlorobenzene Paraffin oils Periplanone B Phytophthora citrophthora Poly. inc. bodies of Autographa californica Poly. incl. bodies of Heliothis NPV or Helicoverpa zea NPV Poly.incl. bodies of beet armyworm NPV Poly.incl. bodies of Neodiprion sertifer NPV Potassium gibberellate Promalin Pseudomonas cepacia type Wisconsin Pseudomonas fluorescens Pseudomonas fluorescens A506 Pseudomonas fluorescens EG-1053 Pseudomonas fluorescens strain NCIB 12089 Pseudomonas syringae 742RS Puccinia canaliculata (Schweinitz) Rimsulfuron DPX-E9636 Ryania speciosa Ryanodine Sesame plant, ground Siduron Silica gel Silicon dioxide Sodium carboxymethylcellulose Sodium metaborate Soybean oil Streptomyces griseoviridis Streptomycin Streptomycin sesquisulfate Sulfometuron-methyl Thifensulfuron-methyl Thiobencarb Tomato pinworm (E)-4-Tridecen-1-yl acetate Tomato pinworm (E)-11-Tetradecenyl acetate Triasulfuron
1-Triacontanol Trichoderma harzianum var. Rifai (KRL-AG2) Trichoderma harzianum (ATCC 20476) Trichoderma polysporum (ATCC 20475) Tussock moth NPV (Douglas Fir)
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 7, 2007 14:39:52 GMT -5
Agrobacterium radiobacter k1026 [12] is a bio-pesticide derived from A. radiobacter k84, a natural bacterium used to control the crown gall disease of fruits and ornamental trees and shrubs. Crown gall disease is due to the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens that causes tumors to form on the plant stems, and is the most common vector employed in plant genetic engineering. GM Agrobacterium radiobacter releases a chemical warfare agent bacteriocin (agrocin) against A. tumefaciens. Bacteriocin is a novel nucleic acid derivative that prevents the crown gall tumors from forming in the infected plants. The GM A. radiobacter has an engineered deletion in the genes controlling plasmid transfer so that the male bacterium cannot transfer its plasmid, but it can act as a female to receive a plasmid transfer. However, recent research suggests that retrotransfer of genetic material can occur from female recipient to male donor bacterium [13]. Pseudomonas flourescens strains modified with Cry delta endotoxin genes from Bacillus thuringiensis are killed before being marketed [14]. The killed GM bacteria are more persistent than are the conventionall B. thuringiensis sprays. The main fallacy in the approval of these biopesticides is to suppose that bacteria cannot enjoy sex (conjugation) after death, they do. Soil bacteria are also easily transformed with cell lysates (squashed dead cells) and function in their genetically modified form in soil microcosms [15]. P. fluorescens and A. tumefacians are both transformed in soil [16]. Soil Pseudomonas and Actinobacter can also take up genes from transgenic plants [17]. So, the combination of transgenic crops and GM biopesticides can create genetic combinations capable of devastating the soil microflora and microfauna. In conclusion, GM microbes have begun to be ubiquitous invaders of the North America ecosystem. This massive invasion took place with little or no public awareness and input, and with very little monitoring of the impact of the invasion. The environmental risk assessments of the commercial microbes were rudimentary and frequently erroneous. We may have a bio-weapons equivalent of a time bomb on our hands. biotech-info.net/microbes_invade.html
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 7, 2007 15:06:30 GMT -5
here is my last contribution for the day, I'm sick and feel like crap and need a nap......below is an 89 page document I found after googling the words agrobacterium harmful humans major investors it is a report on Genetically Modified Plants www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Ras/01-108.pdfhave fun with this one!
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 7, 2007 17:08:08 GMT -5
guess I'm addicted to hunting for the cause Briefing Paper for Minister of State for the Environment Special Safety Concerns of Transgenic Agriculture and Related Issues Examples of unexpected, unintended toxicities and allergenicities are already known, even for cases where the organism's own genes are being increased in copy number, details of which can be found in earlier publications.14 I draw your attention to Monsanto's transgenic soya, which was approved by the UK Novel Foods Committee for our market since 1996 as 'substantially equivalent' and therefore safe. It was found, nevertheless, to have a 26.7% increase in a major allergen, trypsin-inhibitor, which is also a growth inhibitor.15 Consistent with this result, the growth rate of male rats was found to be inhibited by the transgenic soya.16 This raises the question as to whether the transgenic soya is responsible for the reported recent increase in soya allergy.17 The findings of Dr. Arpad Pusztai suggest that the major toxicities of two transgenic potatoes lines engineered with snowdrop lectin are due to the transgenic process, and not the lectin.18 The two transgenic lines are different from each other, and from subsequent generations of each line, underscoring the unpredictable, unstable nature of transgenic varieties. Pusztai's experiments are the first comprehensive safety-testing of any transgenic food/feed ever undertaken. They cannot, and should not, be lightly dismissed. There is no case for regarding transgenic lines constructed with the same methods and involving the same gene constructs and plant varieties as a class, as far as safety assessment is concerned. Each resulting transgenic line is different, with different unexpected, unintended characteristics. Therefore, before each line is authorized for release into the environment, it must be thoroughly characterized with respect to the site(s) of foreign gene insertion. There must be evidence, supported with the appropriate molecular genetic and other scientific data, that the line is stable in gene expression and gene insert(s) under a reasonable range of conditions of growth for at least five generations. Appropriate toxicity/ allergenicity testing must be done on human volunteers. There is a very strong case that transgenic foods should be as stringently tested as new drugs. There is no case for regarding transgenic lines constructed with the same methods and involving the same gene constructs and plant varieties as a class, as far as safety assessment is concerned. Each resulting transgenic line is different, with different unexpected, unintended characteristics. Therefore, before each line is authorized for release into the environment, it must be thoroughly characterized with respect to the site(s) of foreign gene insertion. There must be evidence, supported with the appropriate molecular genetic and other scientific data, that the line is stable in gene expression and gene insert(s) under a reasonable range of conditions of growth for at least five generations. Appropriate toxicity/ allergenicity testing must be done on human volunteers. There is a very strong case that transgenic foods should be as stringently tested as new drugs. When is scientific evidence considered sufficient to indicate that the risk is unacceptable? Risk is technically the extent of damage multiplied by the probability that the damage will occur. People take risk for a number of reasons: because they have to, or because there is overwhelming moral imperative for doing so, or because the likely benefits are compelling despite the potential damage. Not one of these reasons applies in the case of transgenic agriculture. On the contrary, existing scientific evidence pointing to the serious damages to health and the ecological environment that are likely to be incurred should compell us to call an immediate halt to the enterprise. That is in accordance with the generally accepted precautionary principle.53 Instead, scientists on the relevant advisory committees appear to have been operating on the inverse precautionary principle, according to which all processes and products must be approved unless proven absolutely unsafe. Arguments such as "no-one has been shown to have died from eating genetically engineered food yet" or "just because horizontal gene transfer happens in the laboratory does not mean it will happen in nature" go against the practice of good, sound science and are frankly irresponsible. It is like saying we have to wait for 8000 babies to be born with truncated limbs before admitting there is sufficient evidence that thalidomide is harmful. The most rational, responsible course of action is to impose a five year moratorium at the very least, in order to create space for desperately needed research, and more importantly, for an open wide-ranging debate on the future of agriculture and food security for all. www.i-sis.org.uk/meacher99.php#footnote50
|
|
|
Post by sarahconnor on Feb 7, 2007 19:21:42 GMT -5
To Ali and everyone, what marvellous research! Well done and thank you. I haven't read through all of the above posts, I don't think I can stomach reading it these days, and emotionally I just can't take it. I know you guys understand.
I have educated myself in the past on the Agrobacterium, nasty stuff. The wikipedia link shows an excellent picture of this. I just wish someone in the medical field would care to put a hand on me, if they could simply feel around my neck and under my chin, I think they would pass out. I have never known anything to be able to be so destructive in the human body. My skin is balled up, and I feel like I am being choked by my own skin.
I don't panic or get hysterical, there is no point, what can I do? Besides I am going to be a mummy and this little baby needs its mum to be calm and strong. Tough call, but I gotta do it.
Thanks again folks. Your hardwork NEVER goes unnoticed.
|
|
|
Post by aligator on Feb 27, 2007 10:58:39 GMT -5
Recovery of a strain of Agrobacterium radiobacter with a mucoid phenotype from an immunocompromised child with bacteremia. www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=265809Agrobacteria are associated more commonly with plant than with human disease. The isolation of Agrobacterium radiobacter from blood cultures of an immunocompromised child with a transcutaneous catheter prompted a review of human infections caused by Agrobacterium species. Only 12 reports describing 19 cases of Agrobacterium infections in humans have appeared in the literature. Sixteen of the patients (84%) were equipped with implantable or transcutaneous medical devices at the time of infection, and 14 of the 19 (80%) patients could be considered immunocompromised because of underlying disease processes. Unlike those in previous reports, however, this patient was infected with a novel mucoid phenotype of A. radiobacter. Because of the significant relationship between infection and biomedical implants, we evaluated the adhesion of this mucoid strain and a nonmucoid strain of A. radiobacter to plastic by using two in vitro assays. No adhesion or biofilm formation was detected for either strain, but nonetheless it is clear from this review that the isolation of Agrobacterium spp. from patients with indwelling medical appliances should not be dismissed as an environmental contaminant.
|
|
|
Post by whiterose on Mar 3, 2007 14:28:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whiterose on Apr 21, 2007 18:43:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by whiterose on Jul 28, 2007 14:21:50 GMT -5
Pushing this forward:
|
|