Who is Genetically Engineering Corals for Color?

MockandRoll

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
104
Reaction score
125
Location
San Antonio
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Scientist are taking the corals left over from large bleaching events and trying to figure out their genetic code for future coral breeding programs (Supported by Paul Allen). Thank you Mr. Allen!!! So my question is who is trying this for color? If not someone should. The genetics of eye, hair and skin color is well understood. All species share genetic traits. This is definitely possible or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
This is kind of what you are getting at:

https://reefbuilders.com/2017/09/05...is-acros-are-the-real-limited-edition-corals/

However, given the mass bleaching and coral death in the world, one of two things will happen, with or without our intervention:

1. The corals will 'move' (or be moved perhaps?) to cooler water; which would better support their hosting algae...

2. The symbiotic algae will adapt to the warming waters...

Both of which could and likely will unleash some new colours...

kRUfJfr.gif
 
I'm sure this will be possible with CRISPR soon enough, pending the current patent battle, though its applications for coral color may take a backseat to more pressing biological and ecological concerns.
 
I think that using CRISPR to modify color will definitely take a back seat.

If I were on one of the teams, my priorities would be increasing thermal range and water chemistry sensitivity.
 
I use CRISPR and would say if one was really interested in producing coral color phenotypic selection and breeding would probably be far more effective and cost a great deal less.


A large amount of industrial research combines selective breeding and molecular technologies now. You identify specimens that say can survive a particular stress, drought, bleaching - whatever stress for the plant/animal. Sequence a few of those and compare to individuals that didn't survive that stress as well. You then can develop molecular markers to help indicate which organisms to select as breeders so to speak. As you collect more data from resulting generations your markers get better and desired phenotypes get stronger. This is best on a huge scale of course.


A lot of traits like stress selection are extremely complex interactions with multiple pathways, turn off a single gene or a couple sets and the pathway just finds another route. There are not all that many (if any) useful traits with environmental response that are just on/off with a single gene. However with markers you can somewhat generalize what is going on with the genome in response without having to try and modify it and then use those individuals for breeding. It actually works quite well and many if not most crop conventional breeding now uses genetic markers. You don’t mess with the genome directly, no regulatory issues.
 
I use CRISPR and would say if one was really interested in producing coral color phenotypic selection and breeding would probably be far more effective and cost a great deal less.


A large amount of industrial research combines selective breeding and molecular technologies now. You identify specimens that say can survive a particular stress, drought, bleaching - whatever stress for the plant/animal. Sequence a few of those and compare to individuals that didn't survive that stress as well. You then can develop molecular markers to help indicate which organisms to select as breeders so to speak. As you collect more data from resulting generations your markers get better and desired phenotypes get stronger. This is best on a huge scale of course.


A lot of traits like stress selection are extremely complex interactions with multiple pathways, turn off a single gene or a couple sets and the pathway just finds another route. There are not all that many (if any) useful traits with environmental response that are just on/off with a single gene. However with markers you can somewhat generalize what is going on with the genome in response without having to try and modify it and then use those individuals for breeding. It actually works quite well and many if not most crop conventional breeding now uses genetic markers. You don’t mess with the genome directly, no regulatory issues.

First off, thank you for your very informative and factual input. It was awesome.

Do you believe that CRISPR cas 9 (Hope I got that right..) is a viable option for trying to produce hardier corals(Meaning more resilient against high temperatures, low pH, etc,.) not more colorful, or would you think phenotypic breeding would be the better option for those traits as well? Other more viable routes?

What I would give to have a beer with you and pick your brain about microbiology.
 
As of right now CRISPR would be more useful in trying to understand more about what is happening in coral than producing results. What I mean by that is you can easily inactivate a gene and see what happens or insert a gene in a particular location to see if there in an effect. This is great for understanding how these genes work on a molecular level - and what is discovered will determine how useful a handful of gene edits might be. I do think this will be a path going forward, however I wouldn’t expect to see much impact from it just because the variable and pathways are probably so complex. Bleaching seems to be caused by a number of factors, heat, light, pH – they are have the same result and can cause bleaching independently but also have seem to have interaction effects and might have drastically different molecular pathways and feedback loops coupled with factors that might mitigate bleaching such as water flow and food density. Making a handful of edits could potentially help with one situation in one environment, but could be detrimental in another environment and this just takes a massive amount of testing and editing. Money and manpower that just isn’t there yet.

Phenotypic breeding is probably going to be the way to go on that. If money is there then add some markers.

Color might be easier. You can put a single gene, like green fluorescent protein with a good promoter and have it express well. Glofish have already done that. How that would turn out in coral I don’t know and it might be more complex with how coral have multiple colors and how those are distributed in the flesh, but color would be far easier and it’s much more feasible using CRISPR.
 
So my question is who is trying this for color? If not someone should. The genetics of eye, hair and skin color is well understood. All species share genetic traits. This is definitely possible or am I missing something?

I certainly hope no one is doing this. At least not and releasing the created mutants back into the wild.

Would you genetically modify a dog to have green, photosynthetic hair?
 
These traits are likely polygenic and synergistic effects between various transcriptionally-active genes can be difficult to analyze. Depending on the genome sizes of these endosymbiotic dinoflagellates, sequencing efforts and resulting analysis could be too cost-prohibitive and time-consuming for current technology.

I think transcriptome profiling of stressed corals may be one of the most useful tools right now.
 
Thanks everyone for some wonderful insight. Have the genomes from different coral species already been sequenced. Has the cost of sequencing come down with PCR? Are there other techniques that are better and cheaper?

I certainly hope no one is doing this. At least not and releasing the created mutants back into the wild.

Would you genetically modify a dog to have green, photosynthetic hair?

Would you make a hairless cat/dog? Seriously though I don't see how genetically modifying color is morally wrong? Or for that matter any genetically modified coral that is more stress resistant. If we do nothing the reefs are gone along with a lot of fish species. I think it can even be argued the human race is influencing evolution of all species on earth.
 
I'm not sure if any coral genomes have been successfully sequenced and annotated (maybe Acropora digitata if I remember). PCR only amplifies specific DNA fragments. Sequencing is done with various platforms currently in the "next-generation sequencing" market (e.g. Illumina, PacBio, etc.). The cost of sequencing is coming down quite rapidly, but the bottleneck is now the cost to pay bioinformaticians to annotate and assemble sequencing reads.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002195
 
Would you make a hairless cat/dog? Seriously though I don't see how genetically modifying color is morally wrong? Or for that matter any genetically modified coral that is more stress resistant. If we do nothing the reefs are gone along with a lot of fish species. I think it can even be argued the human race is influencing evolution of all species on earth.

I don't want to dis all genetic engineering because some is very useful (vitamin A in rice, for example). The sentence I was responding to asked solely about colors, which would be done purely for "fun", or obviously, simple profit, and if the corals were intentionally or accidentally put back into the wild, could change the whole look of nature.

No, I would not genetically engineer a dog or cat for any purpose, but your example of hairless dogs is not genetic "engineering". It is selection of naturally existing traits (at least those are the examples I know of).
 
First of all, in order to do genetical engineering of corals or whatever organism for whatever traits you want to modify, you NEED to know the genes ruling those traits. The more complex the character, the more complex its genetic determination (that is what we call polygenic traits). Therefore, a lot of genetic, genomic and proteomic analyses have to be carried out to have an idea of the genes governing the trait you want to modify. That is why those traits determined by a single gene (some diseases, the color of some part of the body, the resistance to a certain disease, etc.) are more easily manipulated than complex traits like behaviour.

There is a lot of ongoing work in plants to find genes whose products make plants more resistant to water stress or extreme temperatures. I'm not so sure about work aiming in the same direction in corals. We already know some gene variants that affect color but, as Randy cleverly pointed out, what is the point, beyond fun or simple profit, to genetically modify a coral to change its color?

I agree that finding the genes, or the alleles, that could make corals more resistant to lower pH or higher temperature, or even trying equivalent genes in plants, would be very positive in terms of fighting the negative effects of global warming.
 
I'm not sure if any coral genomes have been successfully sequenced and annotated (maybe Acropora digitata if I remember). PCR only amplifies specific DNA fragments. Sequencing is done with various platforms currently in the "next-generation sequencing" market (e.g. Illumina, PacBio, etc.). The cost of sequencing is coming down quite rapidly, but the bottleneck is now the cost to pay bioinformaticians to annotate and assemble sequencing reads.

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002195

I have done some work with community profile analysis with RNA-seq alongside DNA next gen seq so we can see not only the genetic profile changes over time but also the expression changes. As Steven said it's expensive for bioinformatics. Even with the software I used there is a lot perl scripting I had to use and still worked with quite a few other people to get it done. This was industry though, we had quite a bit more resources the academia and the results are not generally not shared. (it wasn't coral though!). This was a few years ago so perhaps it's better now.
 
First of all, in order to do genetical engineering of corals or whatever organism for whatever traits you want to modify, you NEED to know the genes ruling those traits. The more complex the character, the more complex its genetic determination (that is what we call polygenic traits). Therefore, a lot of genetic, genomic and proteomic analyses have to be carried out to have an idea of the genes governing the trait you want to modify. That is why those traits determined by a single gene (some diseases, the color of some part of the body, the resistance to a certain disease, etc.) are more easily manipulated than complex traits like behaviour.

There is a lot of ongoing work in plants to find genes whose products make plants more resistant to water stress or extreme temperatures. I'm not so sure about work aiming in the same direction in corals. We already know some gene variants that affect color but, as Randy cleverly pointed out, what is the point, beyond fun or simple profit, to genetically modify a coral to change its color?

I agree that finding the genes, or the alleles, that could make corals more resistant to lower pH or higher temperature, or even trying equivalent genes in plants, would be very positive in terms of fighting the negative effects of global warming.


To illustrate Chema's point I worked at one of the biggest crop research companies specifically in the area of drought resistance for about 7 years. Despite the programs 20ish year span and millions and millions spent not only in that company but several others there were only a few promising leads that really fleshed out. I think they might be to market soon but are not really the home run everyone was thinking they would be. The amount of incredibly smart people, the tens of millions plus and two decades spent on this is amazing.

When the breeding part of the organization turned its genetic marker technology and selective breeding power to the problem of drought tolerance they produced a viable product in 3 years from testing to limited market and this product easily bested the absolute best drought strains we could engineer. Aquamax from Pioneer I think it was released in 2013 after the trails in 2012.

Now there are some nuances in how everything shook out over this time period so just use it as a rough example as how complex it can be to control a phenotypic response to some stressors in a real world environment by directly modifying genes. I doubt there will ever be the money into saving coral as there is in crop research, but as costs come down it's hard to predict what all will happen!

It was not a fun time to be in drought resistance group and it seemed like a good idea to shift focus personally to bacteria!
 
I have done some work with community profile analysis with RNA-seq alongside DNA next gen seq so we can see not only the genetic profile changes over time but also the expression changes. As Steven said it's expensive for bioinformatics. Even with the software I used there is a lot perl scripting I had to use and still worked with quite a few other people to get it done. This was industry though, we had quite a bit more resources the academia and the results are not generally not shared. (it wasn't coral though!). This was a few years ago so perhaps it's better now.

What organisms do you work on? Anything marine?
 
Nothing marine. Bacteria, specifically Lactobacillus although also some bacterial communities.
 
I'm 100% with Mr Randy and I don't like to think that man is putting effort and money just for changing coral colors.
Also I believe the only way to save coral reefs it's taking better care of our planet, which it's not the way things are going... sorry...
 

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top