Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:40:23 AM
You are failing to distinguish between genetic variation at the site of the genetic modifications and genetic variation elsewhere in the genome. There has been no indication whatsoever at any time whatsoever of unintended genetic variation at the site(s) of genetic modifications using zinc fingers.
There is considerable variation in the Large Commercial Worm (LWC) in parts of the genome not important for silk production (and that is a desirable thing). Such variations do not affect silk but make the worms more robust and resistant to environmental stresses.
Read my past posts carefully what is affecting the silk (adding variability is variations in sequence that are not important to the production of normal silk (and thus not consistent in the LCW) but which ARE important in the production of KBLB's silk with SSP added, almost certainly because of the exceptionally large demand for two amino acids used in much smaller amounts in normal silk. That would explain why selection occurring as a normal part of the ramping up of the MS population caused large improvements in viability, for example.
MS worms are only HALF LCWs, the other half of their genes come from the wild type worm to which the original GMs were made (using the piggyBac transposon which makes random insertions.) the piggyBac was not used at any point in Big Red and all GMs were into EXACT locations with zinc fingers.
Some degree of adaption in other genes is necessary for ANY genetically modified production animal (the effects of genes are highly interrelated) and this should not in any way whatsoever be viewed as an unusual problem In fact, it is a DEAD STANDARD part of the creation of transgenic production organisms (both plants and animals. It's not often discussed precisely because it is so dead standard and very routine to do and occurs during the ramping up of the population and so does not result in undue delays.
Recent KBLB News
- Form S-1/A - General form for registration of securities under the Securities Act of 1933: [Amend] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/22/2023 09:31:54 PM
- Form 424B3 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(3)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/16/2023 09:30:34 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 11/13/2023 09:43:51 PM
- Form 424B3 - Prospectus [Rule 424(b)(3)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 09/11/2023 08:30:50 PM
- Form EFFECT - Notice of Effectiveness • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 09/08/2023 04:15:15 AM
- Form POS AM - Post-Effective amendments for registration statement • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 09/01/2023 08:30:52 PM
- Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)] • Edgar (US Regulatory) • 08/14/2023 08:35:05 PM
NanoViricides Reports that the Phase I NV-387 Clinical Trial is Completed Successfully and Data Lock is Expected Soon • NNVC • May 2, 2024 10:07 AM
ILUS Files Form 10-K and Provides Shareholder Update • ILUS • May 2, 2024 8:52 AM
Avant Technologies Names New CEO Following Acquisition of Healthcare Technology and Data Integration Firm • AVAI • May 2, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM