Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 20 2017, @07:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the crispr-critters dept.

Scientists have used CRISPR to disrupt the genes responsible for forming the patterns on butterfly wings:

The brilliant, intricate patterns on butterfly wings — from haunting eye spots to iridescent splashes of blue — look as if they were painted on by teams of artists. Researchers thought that a complex collection of genes might be responsible, interacting to build up the final pattern. But two studies now suggest that two genes play an outsize role in determining the wing's lines and colours. Turning off these 'master' genes disrupts the canvas, dulling the colours or turning the insects monochromatic.

The studies published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences challenge the old paradigm of wing-pattern development, says Bob Reed, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and lead author of one of the papers and a co-author on the other. Understanding how wing patterns are controlled gives scientists greater insight into the evolution of traits that help the insects to avoid predation and attract mates.

"The two different genes are complementary. They are painting genes specialized, in a way, for making patterns," says Arnaud Martin, a developmental biologist at George Washington University in Washington DC, and lead author of one of the studies.

Also at New Atlas, the The New York Times, and BBC (2m video).

Macroevolutionary shifts of WntA function potentiate butterfly wing-pattern diversity (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1708149114) (DX)

Single master regulatory gene coordinates the evolution and development of butterfly color and iridescence (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1709058114) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:13PM

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday September 20 2017, @06:13PM (#570751) Journal

    rather than create a reliable supply of gene-edited butterflies.

    Well, that's one way of looking at it.

    But I gotta ask, why is one outcome more acceptable than another?

    If a reliable supply of gene-edited butterflies serves a useful purpose (pollinator for example - even a commercial one), isn't that just as valuable as something to practice on in genetics 302?

    When mankind puts some animal to purpose, that generally guarantees the survival of that species. (Chicken need never fear extinction).
    But when humans decide to start tinkering with genetics, no species is safe, and extinction is usually part of the plan for the starter species.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2