Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Deep Learning and Economic Prospects in Medical and Pharmaceutical Biotechnology
Published in Hajiya Mairo Inuwa, Ifeoma Maureen Ezeonu, Charles Oluwaseun Adetunji, Emmanuel Olufemi Ekundayo, Abubakar Gidado, Abdulrazak B. Ibrahim, Benjamin Ewa Ubi, Medical Biotechnology, Biopharmaceutics, Forensic Science and Bioinformatics, 2022
Charles Oluwaseun Adetunji, Kingsley Eghonghon Ukhurebor, Olugbemi Tope Olaniyan, Juliana Bunmi Adetunji, Gloria E. Okotie, Julius Kola Oloke
Mebratu et al. (2014) revealed that genetic engineering can be described as a process involved in the manipulation of genetic components of cells like RNA and/or DNA in order to improving yield, changing or modifying products. It involves in vitro or in vivo techniques, gene therapy or generation of new strains from microorganisms for industrial or pharmaceutical utilization. The authors revealed that the utilization of genetic engineering for animal production with resistance to pathogens, production of vaccines, and increasing yield in agriculture has grown exponentially. Though many concerns have been raised like alteration of natural process of genetic equilibrium, cost and ethical concerns, the utilization of this cutting-edge technology holds a promising future for livestock production.
Hazards (Risk)
Published in Michael L. Madigan, Handbook of Emergency Management Concepts, 2017
Biological hazards are associated with food, including certain viruses, parasites, fungi, bacteria, and plant and seafood toxins. Pathogenic Campylobacter and Salmonella are common food-borne biological hazards. The hazards from these bacteria can be avoided through risk mitigation steps such as proper handling, storing, and cooking of food. Disease in humans can come from biological hazards in the form of infection by bacteria, antigens, viruses, or parasite. There is some concern that new technologies such as genetic engineering pose biological hazards. Genetically modified (GM) organisms are relatively new manmade biological hazards and many have yet to be fully characterized.
Food and Beverage Bio-manufacturing – Industry 5.0
Published in Pau Loke Show, Kit Wayne Chew, Tau Chuan Ling, The Prospect of Industry 5.0 in Biomanufacturing, 2021
Deepshika Deepak, Wen Yi Chia, Kit Wayne Chew, Pau Loke Show
Paired with CRISPR, Cas 9 is CRISPR associated protein 9, which plays an essential role in the immunological defence of certain bacteria, leading to many breakthroughs in genetic engineering. A shining example of the application of CRISPR-Cas9 technology combined with big data and machine learning is by CropsOS, an American genetic engineering company. They have created a genome editing system with the help of machine learning-based analytics and this is able to effectively improve properties in the plant such as flavour, nutrient density and sustainability.
A review on microalgae biofuel and biorefinery: challenges and way forward
Published in Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2020
Lakhan Kumar, Navneeta Bharadvaja
Genetic engineering is a modern biotechnological tool to enhance the production of a targeted biomolecule in a specific host through the insertion or deletion of a particular gene of interest (Le, Chu, and Le 2016). It involves the selection and isolation of coding/expressing genes and their transfer to the targeted host for achieving the desired phenotype (Gangl et al. 2015). Microalgae capture carbon, store and then channelize it through various biosynthetic pathways for the production of various essential and non-essential biomolecules such as lipid, carbohydrate, proteins, and pigments, etc (Fu et al. 2016). This carbon-capture and storage mechanism can be transformed for our advantage through genetic engineering by altering various metabolic and biosynthesis pathways. Advancements in genetic engineering and molecular biology coupled with various metabolic engineering tools offer a significant improvement in photosynthetic efficiency and increased rate of CO2 assimilation followed by enhanced biomass accumulation in photosynthetic organisms (Gomaa, Al-Haj, and Abed 2016). A strategy based on the identification and selection of responsible genes in cell-wall biosynthesis to target desired changes in biomolecules composition can be roped into biorefinery to increase the viability and suitability of biofuel production from algal biomass (Beer et al. 2009). Research advancements toward the well-informed understanding of cellular processes and their responses to various biotic and abiotic environmental stimuli are needed to make algal biofuels commercially exploitable business. Greater insight on the connection between molecular and morphological characteristics of algal extracellular matrix and their organelles can significantly improve by-products recovery and process economies. Genetics, either chemical or classical both have been reviewed extensively due to their promising results. Chemical genetics (Yu, Chen, and Zhang 2015) as compared to classical genetics gives advantage in-terms of control (Lenka et al. 2016). Genetic manipulation in Hydrogenase enzyme activity can enhance hydrogen-producing ability of Spirulina sp. for hydrogen production and bioelectricity generation (Behera et al. 2007). Overexpression, downregulation or silencing of a particular gene results into improved accumulation of desired cellular component. Overexpression of FAB2 gene in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii resulted in 28% increase in total fatty acids as compared to control while suppression of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase facilitated 169.5% increment in triacylglycerides yield. Several genetic engineering manipulations which resulted in increased accumulation of lipid or other cell component in particular algae have been tabulated in Table 3.
Anticipating risks, governance needs, and public perceptions of de-extinction
Published in Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2019
Rene X. Valdez, Jennifer Kuzma, Christopher L. Cummings, M. Nils Peterson
Government agencies and policies have been slow to adapt to development of biotechnology in recent years, likely contributing to the respondents’ confusion over who should govern de-extinction. In the United States, genetic engineering (GE) is federally regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Drug Administration, under the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology (OSTP 1986). This framework has not been updated to adequately cover contemporary biotechnology products (Kuzma 2016). Further, state and local governments also regulate specific GE products (Bratspies 2004). Consequently, genetically engineered pet GloFish® are largely unregulated but restricted from California (Knight 2003), and genetically engineered salmon have waited years for regulatory approval to enter the United States market (Vàzquez-Salat et al. 2012). Regulatory changes appear pressing amid growing concerns about genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and gene drive systems (Oye et al. 2014). Unlike previous genetic technologies, gene drive systems, which could be incorporated into de-extinct populations, may be able to transform entire populations or species, not just individuals, presenting larger regulatory challenges (Esvelt et al. 2014). The lack of agreement about who should govern de-extinction identified in this study may relate to the division of responsibility currently in place, and the lack of updates in the face of advancing biotechnology. Experts infrequently mentioned international governance institutions, which may reflect the fact that the United States is not party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) or the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB; Kuzma 2016). This represents a critical future governance need, especially as the U.S. may take the lead on de-extinction. Conservation experts have already cited the lack of a shared international framework for genetic engineering as a potential limiting factor in future conservation applications (Sutherland et al. 2017). The CBD-CPB requires Advance Informed Agreements in transporting living modified organisms (LMO) across borders for countries that have signed and ratified the treaty (CBD 2000). It also hosts a clearinghouse of risk analysis information and protocols for LMOs (CBD 2000). It could be used to develop sub-protocols and guidelines for de-extinction, but if one of the key developers of de-extinction, the U.S., remains outside of its jurisdiction, it will not be effective. Thus, without an international governance framework for de-extinction that includes all countries developing and deploying LMOs, as well as their neighbors (i.e. in case of unintentional movement outside desired areas), de-extinct animals may cause transnational conflicts (Okuno 2017). Their deployment could lead to disputes under trade and transport agreements associated with the World Trade Organization or other multi-lateral frameworks. Deployment without assurance of agreed upon governance frameworks could result in political disagreements or onerous financial penalties.