Monthly Archives: October 2010

Suntory Vs. The Blue Rose Petals

True Blue

Suntory Holdings unveiled its blue rose ‘Applause’ at a press conference on October 20, 2009, almost a year ago now. The first thing one notices, in spite of all the coverage, including the internet ‘acclaim’ long before the reality, and the fact its petals, genetically, are supposed to contain blue pigment (from an advertisement: “…Suntory Holdings said to be the world’s first roses with nearly 100 percent blue pigment in the petals…”), these roses are, to the naked eye, not truly blue at all, but a shade of lilac. Please see an image of one below.

Perhaps the ‘applause’ should have been held until an authentic blue rose, one that in appearance matches what has been sought in reality, indeed makes its appearance. True the search has been something of a Holy Grail to breeders for at least a century and really quite a long time before this century; and the comparison to the search for the Holy Grail is as ubiquitous as the claim that search has ended at last with the cultivar of Suntory and Florigene. Still this is not an authentic blue rose, and the real claim that should be voiced is simply this ‘cultivar’ now has, perhaps, the potential of breeding what will be, sometime in the future, an authentic blue rose.

Blue Moon Etc.

Of course blue roses don’t exist in nature. The gene making the color possible doesn’t exist in roses; a fact that has only relatively recently come into the light. Florigene isolated the gene responsible for the expression of the color blue in 1991.

Traditionally the alternative has been dyeing white roses creating ‘faux blue’ roses; in fact, a book from the 12th century, by Zubair ibn al-Awam, The Book of Andalusian Agriculture, and translated into French by J. J. Clement-Mullet in 1874, describes a process for creating blue roses by placing blue dye in the bark of the roots.

The desire for blue roses has been around a long time! There is also supposed to have been a prize of 500,000 francs offered back in 1840 by the horticultural societies of Britain and Belgium to the first person able to create a blue rose.

Of course conventional breeding methods for creating a blue rose ‘naturally’ have long been attempted but yielded, well, only roses of a lilac hue, such as the ‘Blue Moon’ variety of hybrid tea roses. The Blue Moon variety is very reminiscent of the Suntory ‘Applause’.

The blue rose has a meaning in the so-called language of flowers; having fallen out of use nowadays, in Victorian times coded messages could be sent in this language allowing expression of feelings that otherwise could not be spoken. In this language the blue rose, courtesy of Wikipedia, has meant: “Mystery, attaining the impossible, love at first sight.”

The collaboration between Santory and Florigene that resulted in the blue rose is in fact no mean feat and has been an ongoing project for some twenty years. Really it is only by using one of the latest techniques in genetic engineering, so-called gene silencing, that the blue rose was birthed. And still we are not really at the end of the road. It has proven a little more difficult to create a blue rose than Florigene may have imagined when first setting their sights on the target.

Suntory vs. the Blue Rose Petals

The blue rose developed by Santory is more of a triumph of the current age’s belief in Science than anything else; seeing is believing notwithstanding. It is easy to imagine people buying these up, sending them to co-workers, friends and lovers etc, proclaiming their ‘blueness’ when in fact they don’t look blue at all. Still the faith is the line will eventually succeed in producing the real thing. Roses that not only are blue, but even look blue as well.

For the time being these are the real thing! Twenty years of hard work and Santory and Science can’t be wrong. There is a species of counterfactual, even surreal humor in the marketing of these blue roses that aren’t blue. Rene Magritte would have smiled.

Bans on Genetically Modified Plants

The other interesting thing about the Suntory blue roses, beyond being not blue, is their being genetically modified; their cultivation might not be allowed in some countries because of controls placed on genetically modified plants. Monsanto has spoiled this game a bit, for everybody, with its ‘Terminator’ seed technology.

From Genetically Modified Plants & Sterile Seeds on healthy-eating-politics.com:

“This “Terminator” technology produces genetically modified plants that have sterile seeds, which do not flower or grow fruit after the initial planting, requiring customers to purchase new seed from Monsanto for every planting in which they use Monsanto seed varieties.”

And from The Guardian re a recent meeting in Europe on this very subject:

“We hope this will break the deadlock over GM, but it’s missing a defence of fundamental principles [of choice]. In some countries there might be more cultivation, but in many it will mean the end of the right of farmers to grow them at all.”

TKO

From physorg.com: “Blue shades should be achievable if Florigene and Suntory researchers can make the rose’s petals less acidic.  Rose petals are moderately acidic, with a pH around 4.5, while carnation petals are less so, with a pH of 5.5.

Florigene and Suntory researchers have ‘fished around’ for roses with higher petal pH, but the low-acidity trait appears to be genetically limited in roses. Researchers are now using RNAi gene-knockout technology to identify genes that influence petal acidity, or that modulate petal colour in other ways.”

The delphinidin gene cloned from a pansy, an enzyme gene from an iris to trigger the reaction, and a synthetic gene, suppressing the DFR gene in a pink rose, this was the 1-2-3 combination that did the trick. Of course the residue of cyanidin, and the natural ph of roses have combined and left not a blue rose, but one just like what you see above, in the picture.

In other words, even with the ‘TKO’ Florigene and Suntory may have scored with its Blue Roses so-called, the real thing, roses that are in fact blue, may yet be years away. And of course, it goes without saying, Suntory and Florigene, after some 20 years of research, were probably anxious to at last get their roses on the market, blue or not.

Florigene

Originally Calgene Pacific Ltd, one of Australia’s first biotechnology companies, after acquiring Florigene, a Dutch rival in 1993, they took their name; Florigene had an international reputation. They were in turn acquired by Nufam in ’99 and Suntory, through Nufam, a global agrochemicals giant, now has a 98.5% equity holding in Florigene.

Here is what Florigene has to say of their research effort, from their website:

“In July 2004 Suntory scientists joint project team announced to the world the development of the first rose in the pipeline to a true blue rose.”

Also from their website:

“Florigene’s original mission was to create the world’s first “blue rose” through genetic modification. With our then partner Suntory Limited, our scientists succeeded in isolating the blue gene (from the petunia flower) in 1991 and patents were filed in all major countries in 1992.”

Neanderthal Genes

Probably, out of all this talk of blue roses, the use of gene silencing technology to ‘knockout’ the expression of the rose’s DFR gene, and our faith in Science to lead us eventually to a rose that is truly blue, and not the counterfeit Suntory has put on the market, these two points stand out.

The ‘quiet’ revolution molecular genetics is ushering in, under our noses, so close most of us don’t notice the first repercussions, is without doubt sobering and even a wee bit frightening; considering Monsanto’s bid to monopolize the market really way beyond sobering and frightening to something else entirely. The word evil springs to mind as being closer to reality.

Yet another aspect of this ‘quiet’ revolution, on a totally different front, is the possibility of creating a colony of Neanderthals in our very midst; their genome is being recreated and the idea of doing such a thing, ‘cloning’ a colony, is being considered in some depth, in some scientific quarters; see Should We Clone Neanderthals at Archaeology Magazine on-line. Perhaps the authentic blue roses, hawked at a ridiculously high price of course, will arrive just in time to welcome this equally unique colony to the age of the impossible.

Maintaining the Horse Trailer

If you’ve ever owned a horse trailer then you know just what type of maintenance is needed to keep it in working order and safe for your equine friends to ride in. However, I have found many people who really don’t understand the necessity of routine maintenance. Horrible trailering accidents can easily be prevented with simple routine upkeep of the horse trailer. Hinges can break causing the door to swing open, possibly letting the horse fall out into traffic. I’ve seen accidents caused by flooring giving way or tires blowing out. While accidents can happen at any time, lowering the odds with proper maintenance is really easy to do. One of the best horse gifts that you can give to give your horse is a safe trailer to ride in.

If you’re not mechanically inclined there are many trailer servicing places in most metro areas that you can take your trailer into for a good once over. It doesn’t have to be a big fancy garage. In fact, one of the best places around here is a little Mom and Pop garage just past the place that always has the cheap draft horses for sale. There are some really basic things to have checked out. Checking that the wiring and trailer brakes are working properly is a must. Having the floor boards checked out is also a must. Most places are very good at getting the mats back in place correctly. They can also check the brake bearings and the tire tread and pressure. A good garage will check for rust and will offer to repair it for an extra fee. They will go over all the hinges and lube them if needed or repair them if they’re damaged. Checking the welds and outer shells for breaks, rust, or damage is often included in the basic service, though fixing such problems might entail an extra fee. Whatever garage you use, getting the routine yearly maintenance checks can end up saving your horse’s life.

Is the Carbon Air Purifier Safe?

Air purifiers serve as our shield from many harmful airborne contaminants that may pose health risks. There are different processes with varying degrees of effectiveness since each process or technique can remove specific contaminants in the air.  These processes or techniques include Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation, HEPA Filters, Photocatalytic Oxidation, Titanium Dioxide, Ozone generators, Ionizers and activated carbon. These processes when combined together are especially effective. Here, we can take a closer look at a specific process called “activated carbon. “

The carbon air purifier is a technology that treats carbon atoms with oxygen which creates millions of tiny pores between each carbon atom. Adsorption is a process where chemicals are drawn to activated carbon and then bond to it. The millions of pores of activated carbon then provide a massive surface area to trap harmful chemicals in the air. Activated carbon can be thought of like a sponge, the bigger the filter, the more chemicals it can adsorb. Because of this adsorption property, so far, this carbon filters are considered the best filtration system available in the market. It can work well under extreme and varying temperatures. Carbon filters cost approximately $500.00 to $900.00 in the market depending on the model, additional features, and the manufacturer.

Consumers are often concerned with health risks. Is the carbon air purifier safe? There is no reason to worry. In fact, its filters remove many VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), Alcohols, Ketones, Halogens, Esters, Ethers, common human and animal odors and other chemicals in the air.  However, these filters are not widely used in households because they do not capture allergens, dust and other micro organisms, so they are not effective for those who suffer allergies, asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Medical practitioners, on the other hand, use this technology for some human applications such as using activated carbon in colon cleansing and to counter ingested toxins because of its adsorbent property. It is also known for adsorbing water impurities.

Purifiers impregnated with activated carbon are recommended for any establishment, but of course remember that not all contaminants are covered by carbon filters, so it is best to combine processes altogether for guaranteed results. Furthermore, activated carbon is safe and used by in industry and medicine regularly.

Why dinosaurs are not extinct

In the twenty plus years I have been involved in paleontology I have been witness to a revolution within science. The revolution has been quiet, not noticed by most of the public. Like any good revolution, the battles of this revolution took place between two camps, the “traditionalists” and the “radicals” who were out to change things. And this shift is illustrative of how science as a whole moves from one way of understanding to a brand new way of looking at the world. It is, in fact, a paradigm shift that has profoundly changed biology and paleontology forever.

At issue is how we explore and classify the relationships of all living things. The traditional view, the one that I was taught as a young student, was the classification of living things into the taxonomy originally begun by Carl Linnaeus. This system started with a group, and then sought to put things into the group. For example, one can make the observation that animals that look like “dogs” could be grouped together, so you would start with the idea of a dog-group and look for animals that should be included.

You might put foxes, wolves, domestic dogs into the group, and call it the dog family. You might also note that “cats” could likewise be grouped, and do the same thing, creating a cat family. In this view, the families were equal in rank—and there could be no overlap. An animal would be included in only one of the equal-ranked families. Any animal was included in only one class, for example Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, or Mammalia.

The equal-ranked heirarchy of classifications worked well enough when we mainly were concerned with modern animals. Clearly, birds look different than mammals and reptiles, so it seemed evident they belonged in their own class. But this classification scheme, however well it served us as a place to start, is myopic about how evolution actually operates—how organisms actually evolve. This is understandable since it was started 100 years before evolution as a theory was established.

In trying to shoehorn life into the system, we repeatedly ran into problems as we expanded our knowledge of the diversity of living things and our understanding that the history of life is a complex branching bush. We knew that early tetrapods (organisms with four limbs) gave rise to the early amphibians that crawled out on land, and that they in turn evolved into reptiles, mammals and birds. But despite this branching within tetrapods, the class ranks were forced to be exclusive, so somewhere in evolutionary history was an “amphibian” that had to become a “reptile,” and a “reptile” that had to become a “bird.”

The many transitional forms in the fossil record increasing became impossible to classify. These intermediate animals had to be forced into one class or another. Increasingly, it became evident that many times the criteria used to put an organism into one class were the whims of an individual scientist, and another equally qualified expert with different opinions might place the same animal in a different class with equal validity.

The origin of birds was for a long time a great mystery to paleontologists. Birds are a pretty unique and specialized group, and while we knew that they originated from reptiles somehow, exactly how and when was unclear. One early paleontologist noted that dinosaurs had many features in common with birds, but the early concepts of what dinosaurs were like distracted most scientists from comparing them too closely. After all, the common conception of dinosaurs was as big, lumbering, dim-witted, swamp-dwelling beasts. The bird ancestor must have been light, fast moving, and energetic.

However, dinosaur research over the last thirty years has completely changed our view of them. Evidence from many lines, including things like footprints and the cellular structure of the bones, all point to dinosaurs as being very dynamic creatures. With this new view, the notion that birds were linked to dinosaurs became clear too. Now, we have dinosaur fossils with feathers, and birds with teeth and dinosaur tails to attest to their close relationships. In fact, birds are most closely related to the meat-eating raptor-like dinosaurs of Jurassic Park fame.

To go along with the revolution in our view of dinosaurs was that revolution in science that I mentioned above–the emergence of a new way to understand the interrelationships of life on Earth. This new model accommodated the myriad branching events that life actually experienced in order to produce the great variety of living things. So, instead of starting with a conception of the group and looking for members, this new concept looked at the branching patterns evident in life, and then sought to apply names.

Below is an illustration of the branching pattern of selected tetrapods, those vertebrates with four well developed limbs. As the first tetrapods gave rise to new and different groups, the branches split off. An early tetrapod gave rise to amphibians and the other animals above it on the chart (mammals, turtles, etc.). A later tetrapod developed traits related to the production of eggs and young that we recognize as the Amniota. Some of those early amniotes went off on an evolutionary trajectory that we can recognize as being the early mammals, and all the diversity that resulted from them. And so it goes up along the branches.

Branching pattern of the tetrapods, mostly the land vertebrates

Branching pattern of the tetrapods, mostly the land vertebrates

We now explore the branches and can apply names to the groups that we find to be meaningful. For example, in the illustration below we can call everything in the box a reptile. Note that it includes things that used to be called reptiles, turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodiles, and dinosaurs, but now also includes birds.

Group that includes all the reptiles

Group that includes all the reptiles

Likewise, if we draw a line around the dinosaurs, they also include the birds. This view of life tells a more complete evolutionary history and retains the branches, letting the animals “fall where they will.” We do not pull birds out of their relationships and give them special consideration. Instead of birds being equal in rank with reptiles, they are included among them. This upsets the tradition that being a bird is somehow equally important to being a reptile, but better reflects the reality of descent, without forcing nature into earlier human conventions of naming and grouping. Of course, birds are a group within their own right, and we could zoom in to explore their branching pattern, but it does not change the group to which they belong.

Group of dinosaurs

Group of dinosaurs

This leads to another startling statement. Below I have highlighted the groups that are extant (still around today).

Groups of tetrapods that are alive today (extant)

Groups of tetrapods that are alive today (extant)

Because of our grouping scheme, birds are included in the dinosaur group, so dinosaurs are not really extinct! They live among us today flitting about, singing their mating songs in the trees. It is funny how things can change in science. Twenty years ago scientists would have told you the dinosaurs were all extinct, and today we say the opposite. I love scientific progress–it can be so startling.