Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The rich heritage of radiation-induced mutations: accelerated mutation and selection
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3983
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 1 of 8 (418384)
08-27-2007 10:55 PM


A story in the NY Times today seems tailored for us here at Evc, putting the lie to claims that mutations cannot be beneficial ("devolutions") or are overwhelmingly likely to be deleterious.
The article discusses the successes achieved by using radiation to promote mutations in food crops, including the creation of red grapefruit, premium barley for Scotch whisky (proof of God as an evolutionary agent if anything can be), etc.
I'm taking the unusual step of quoting the brief article in full here because it is exceptionally relevant to our EvC debates.
quote:
Useful Mutants, Bred With Radiation
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: August 28, 2007
VIENNA ” Pierre Lagoda pulled a small container from his pocket and spilled the contents onto his desk. Four tiny dice rolled to a stop.
“That’s what nature does,” Dr. Lagoda said. The random results of the dice, he explained, illustrate how spontaneous mutations create the genetic diversity that drives evolution and selective breeding.
He rolled the dice again. This time, he was mimicking what he and his colleagues have been doing quietly around the globe for more than a half-century ” using radiation to scramble the genetic material in crops, a process that has produced valuable mutants like red grapefruit, disease-resistant cocoa and premium barley for Scotch whiskey.
“I’m doing the same thing,” he said, still toying with the dice. “I’m not doing anything different from what nature does. I’m not using anything that was not in the genetic material itself.”
Dr. Lagoda, the head of plant breeding and genetics at the International Atomic Energy Agency, prides himself on being a good salesman. It can be a tough act, however, given wide public fears about the dangers of radiation and the risks of genetically manipulated food. His work combines both fields but has nonetheless managed to thrive.
The process leaves no residual radiation or other obvious marks of human intervention. It simply creates offspring that exhibit new characteristics.
Though poorly known, radiation breeding has produced thousands of useful mutants and a sizable fraction of the world’s crops, Dr. Lagoda said, including varieties of rice, wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum. The mutant wheat is used for bread and pasta and the mutant barley for beer and fine whiskey.
The mutations can improve yield, quality, taste, size and resistance to disease and can help plants adapt to diverse climates and conditions.
Dr. Lagoda takes pains to distinguish the little-known radiation work from the contentious field of genetically modified crops, sometimes disparaged as “Frankenfood.” That practice can splice foreign genetic material into plants, creating exotic varieties grown widely in the United States but often feared and rejected in Europe. By contrast, radiation breeding has made few enemies.
“Spontaneous mutations are the motor of evolution,” Dr. Lagoda said. “We are mimicking nature in this. We’re concentrating time and space for the breeder so he can do the job in his lifetime. We concentrate how often mutants appear ” going through 10,000 to one million ” to select just the right one.”
Radiation breeding is widely used in the developing world, thanks largely to the atomic agency’s efforts. Beneficiaries have included Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand and Vietnam.
Politically, the method is one of many quid pro quos the agency, an arm of the United Nations in Vienna, offers client states. Its own agenda is to inspect ostensibly peaceful atomic installations in an effort to find and deter secret work on nuclear weapons.
Plant scientists say radiation breeding could play an important role in the future. By promoting crop flexibility, it could help feed billions of added mouths despite shrinking land and water, rising oil and fertilizer costs, increasing soil exhaustion, growing resistance of insects to pesticides and looming climate change. Globally, food prices are already rising fast.
“It’s not going to solve the world food crisis,” said J. Neil Rutger, former director of the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center in Stuttgart, Ark. “But it will help. Modern plant breeders are using every tool they can get.”
The method was discovered some 80 years ago when Lewis J. Stadler of the University of Missouri used X-rays to zap barley seeds. The resulting plants were white, yellow, pale yellow and some had white stripes ” nothing of any practical value.
But the potential was clear. Soon, by exposing large numbers of seeds and young plants, scientists produced many more mutations and found a few hidden beneficial ones. Peanuts got tougher hulls. Barley, oats and wheat got better yields. Black currants grew.
The process worked because the radiation had randomly mixed up the genetic material of the plants. The scientists could control the intensity of the radiation and thus the extent of the disturbance, but not the outcome. To know the repercussions, they had to plant the radiated material, let it grow and examine the results. Often, the gene scrambling killed the seeds and plants, or left them with odd mutations. But in a few instances, the process made beneficial traits.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States government promoted the method as part of its “atoms for peace” program and had notable successes. In 1960, disease heavily damaged the bean crop in Michigan ” except for a promising new variety that had been made by radiation breeding. It and its offspring quickly replaced the old bean.
In the early 1970s, Dr. Rutger, then in Davis, Calif., fired gamma rays at rice. He and his colleagues found a semi-dwarf mutant that gave much higher yields, partly because it produced more grain. Its short size also meant it fell over less often, reducing spoilage. Known as Calrose 76, it was released publicly in 1976.
Here to Stay Today, Dr. Rutger said, about half the rice grown in California derives from this dwarf. Now retired in Woodland, Calif., he lives just a few miles from where the descendants grow, he said.
A similar story unfolded in Texas. In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color ” Star Ruby, released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas.
Though the innovations began in the United States, the method is now used mostly overseas, with Asia and Europe the leading regions. Experts cited two main reasons: domestic plant researchers over the decades have already made many, perhaps most of the easiest improvements that can be achieved with radiation, and they now focus on highly popular fields like gene splicing.
“Most scientists here would say it’s pretty primitive,” Norman T. Uphoff, a professor of government and international agriculture at Cornell University, said of the method. “It’s like being in a huge room with a flashlight.”
But the flashlight is cheap, which has aided its international spread.
Today, the process usually begins with cobalt-60, a highly radioactive material used in industrial radiography and medical radiotherapy. Its gamma rays, more energetic than X-rays, can travel many yards through the air and penetrate lead.
Understandably, the exposure facilities for radiation breeding have layers of shielding. Scientists run small machines the size of water heaters that zap containers full of seeds, greenhouses that expose young plants and special fields that radiate row upon row of mature plants. In Japan, one circular field is more than 650 feet wide. A shielding dike some 28 feet high rises around its perimeter.
Dr. Lagoda said a rust fungus threatened the Japanese pear, a cross between pears and apples. But one irradiated tree had a branch that showed resistance. He said the Japanese cloned it, successfully started a new crop and with the financial rewards “paid for 30 years of research.”
The payoff was even bigger in Europe, where scientists fired gamma rays at barley to produce Golden Promise, a mutant variety with high yields and improved malting. After its debut in 1967, brewers in Ireland and Britain made it into premium beer and whiskey. It still finds wide use.
“The secret,” reads a recent advertisement for a single malt Scotch whiskey costing $49.99 a bottle, is “the continued use of finest Golden Promise barley and the insistence on oak sherry casks from Spain.”
The atomic agency in Vienna has promoted the method since 1964 in outreach programs with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in Rome.
Starting roughly a decade ago, for instance, the atomic agency helped scientists fight a virus that was killing cocoa trees in Ghana, which produces about 15 percent of the world’s chocolate. The virus was killing and crippling millions of trees.
In the city of Accra on the Atlantic coast, at the laboratories of the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, the scientists exposed cocoa plant buds to gamma rays. The mutants included one that endowed its offspring with better resistance to the killer virus.
The scientists planted the resistant variety on 25 farms across Ghana “with no evidence of a resurgence,” M. R. Appaih, executive director of the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana, told the agency.
The atomic agency had similar success in the Peruvian Andes, where some three million people live on subsistence farming. The region, nearly two miles high, has extremely harsh weather. But nine new varieties of barley improved harvests to the point that farmers had surplus crops to sell.
In 2006, Prof. Gomes Pando won the Peruvian prize for Good Government Practices for her work on the radiation mutants.
In Vietnam, the agency has worked closely with local scientists to improve production of rice, a crop that accounts for nearly 70 percent of the public’s food energy.
One mutant had yields up to four times higher than its parent and grew well in acidic and saline soils, allowing farmers to use it in coastal regions, including the Mekong Delta.
Last year, a team of 10 Vietnamese scientists wrote in an agency journal, Plant Mutation Reports, that the nation had sown the new varieties across more than one million hectares, or 3,860 square miles. The new varieties, they added, “have already produced remarkable economic and social impacts, contributing to poverty alleviation in some provinces.”
Dr. Lagoda said that radiation breeding, though an old technology, was undergoing rapid growth. New methods that speed up the identification of mutants are making radiation breeding even more popular, he said.
“Now it becomes interesting again,” he said of the method. “It’s not a panacea. It’s not the solution. But it’s a very efficient tool that helps us reduce the breeding time.”
Spreading the secret, Dr. Lagoda added as he played with his tiny dice, “is very gratifying because we really, really help people.”

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 08-28-2007 3:03 AM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 4 by Equinox, posted 08-28-2007 3:06 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 08-28-2007 8:37 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 8 (418427)
08-28-2007 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
08-27-2007 10:55 PM


Why is this a coffee house topic?
Hi Omni,
I can't see how this qualifies as a coffee house topic. If you want to just put this out there then it would be more suited to the 'links and information' or 'Creation/Evolution in the news' forum, if you want it discussed it should be put through the PNT process like any other topic.
If you can tell me what you are aiming for here we can get it into the right forum, 'Coffee House' isn't here so people can ignore the PNT process when they feel like it but there are particular fora where suitable topics can be posted with requiring PNT approval and either of the two I mentioned would seem more suitable than 'Coffee House'.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 08-27-2007 10:55 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Omnivorous, posted 08-28-2007 8:09 AM AdminWounded has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3983
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 3 of 8 (418447)
08-28-2007 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminWounded
08-28-2007 3:03 AM


Re: Why is this a coffee house topic?
Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the PNT process: actually had "In the News" in mind but clearly missed by a mile.
Anywhere would be fine.

Real things always push back.
-William James
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 08-28-2007 3:03 AM AdminWounded has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5162 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 4 of 8 (418504)
08-28-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
08-27-2007 10:55 PM


It's a great article. I proposed a topic on this too, thinking that biological (?!?) evolution would be a good place for it. I'd like to see how creationists deny that these are beneficial mutations, or how they can still maintain that beneficial mutations don't exist.
-Equinox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 08-27-2007 10:55 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 08-28-2007 3:39 PM Equinox has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 5 of 8 (418506)
08-28-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Equinox
08-28-2007 3:06 PM


Unfortunately, it'll be pretty easy for them.
You know how they argue that just because a computer program mimics evolution (and is thus evidence for its existence because the programs are based on life) it doesn't mean evolution is right because someone had to design the program or build the computer?
They'll use the same argument--it's people making the mutations, not nature. Thus, nature can't make beneficial mutations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Equinox, posted 08-28-2007 3:06 PM Equinox has not replied

  
AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 8 (418508)
08-28-2007 4:15 PM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3312 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 8 (418532)
08-28-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Omnivorous
08-27-2007 10:55 PM


Omni writes:
A story in the NY Times today seems tailored for us here at Evc, putting the lie to claims that mutations cannot be beneficial ("devolutions") or are overwhelmingly likely to be deleterious.
I'm puzzled about something. Here's how I have always seen it in a nutshell.
(1) We know that mutations happen. We observe it all the time in laboratories and in the various populations we study.
(2) Most of these mutations turn out to be either deleterious or are simply neutral. We see genetic disorders popping up all the time.
(3) We do observe from time to time mutations that are actually beneficial and would actually help the individual survive a bottleneck event.
(A) We can start out with a single bacterium that we know is not resistant to anti-biotics. After we allow this bacterium to turn into whole colonies of bacteria, all descendants of the single bacterium, we introduce an antibiotic agent. Sometimes all these colonies are killed off by the antibiotics and sometimes a few individuals survive. I know this for a fact because I've done this experiment many times before in my lab. So, clearly there was a mutation somewhere along the line that was beneficial enough for some bacteria to survive the introduction of antibiotics.
(B) Now, start out with an antibiotic resistant strain and do the same thing in A and see what happens.
My point is what's up for debate? At least for me, inducing mutations to look for beneficial ones has been common knowledge since long before I turned away from fundamentalism. I simply don't understand why we have to keep repeating these very common knowledge stuff. What puzzles me even more is how come the mainstream press aren't helping us out by making this very common knowledge stuff more well known? What puzzles me even more more more more more is how come the more knowledgable christians who claim to obey the 10 commandments try to help us out by telling their fellow christians about this very well known fact?
I mean, there are whole industries making profits out of making mutant strains.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Omnivorous, posted 08-27-2007 10:55 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
creative-evolutionist
Junior Member (Idle past 5744 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 03-28-2008


Message 8 of 8 (465596)
05-08-2008 11:25 AM


What would interest me now is: How do hardcore Creationists argue when faced with the evidence of beneficial mutations?
For example Lederberg, J. and E. M. Lederberg, 1952. Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406.
Is there a creationist on this forum that would like to show us that, even with the evidence at hand, there still are no beneficial mutations? And not by simply saying, that we have false data or the scientists are lying or something.
Or has this argument been terminally disproven?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024