Tuesday, 30 April 2013

CAREER: genetic Engineering

 CAREER : Genetic Engineering 
 Introduction
Genetic Engineering (GE) is a highly complicated and advanced branch of science which involves a wide range of techniques used in changing the genetic material in the DNA code in a living organism. 'Genetic Engineering' means the deliberate modification of the characters of an organism by the manipulation of its genetic material. Genetic engineering comes under the broad heading of Biotechnology. There is a great scope in this field as the demand for genetic engineers are growing in India as well as abroad.
A cell is the smallest living unit, the basic structural and functional unit of all living matter, whether a plant, an animal, humans or a fungus. While some organisms are single celled, others like plants, animals, humans etc are made up of a lot more cells. For eg humans have approximately 3 million cells. A cell is composed of a 'cell membrane' enclosing the whole cell, many 'organelles' equivalent to the organs in the body and a 'nucleus' which is the command centre of the cell. Inside the nucleus are the chromosomes which is the storage place for all genetic (hereditary) information which determines the nature and characteristics of an organism. This information is written along the thin thread, called DNA, a nucleic acid which constitutes the genes (units of heredity). The DNA governs cell growth and is responsible for the transmission of genetic information from one generation to the next. 
Genetic engineering aims to re-arrange the sequence of DNA in gene using artificial methods. The work of a genetic engineer involves extracting the DNA out of one organism, changing it using chemicals or radiation and subsequently putting it back into the same or a different organism. For eg: genes and segments of DNA from one species is taken and put into another species. They also study how traits and characteristics are transmitted through the generations, and how genetic disorders are caused. Their research involves researching the causes and discovering potential cures if any. 
 Similar Career Options
›› Entomology
›› Meteorology
›› Food Flavorist/Flavor Chemist
View More...
Genetic engineering have specialisations related to plants, animals and human beings. Genetic engineering in plants and animals may be to improve certain natural characteristics of value, to increase resistance to disease or damage and to develop new characteristics etc. It is used to change the colour, size, texture etc of plants otherwise known as GM (Genetically Modified) foods. GE in humans can be to correct severe hereditary defects by introducing normal genes into cells in place of missing or defective ones.

Eligibility & Course Areas
Educational : A qualified genetic engineer, must have a graduate / postgraduate degree in genetics or related fields such as biotechnology, molecular biology, microbiology or biochemistry OR a doctorate (PhD) from a recognised university, based on 2-3 years of his own research under the guidance of a professor/lecturer. 
The basic eligibility criteria for a graduate degree (BE / B.Tech) is 10+2 or equivalent examination, with Biology, Chemistry and Mathematics as well as genetics as part of the biology OR a bachelors degree in science or molecular biology.  
Most institutes do not offer courses in Genetic Engineering as a special discipline but as a subsidiary in biotechnology, microbiology, biochemistry streams. Undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Biotechnology offer specialisation in genetic engineering. 
Selection to the graduate courses ( BE / B.Tech ) is based on merit i.e the marks secured in the final exams of 10+2 and through entrance exams. Entrance to the IIT's is through JEE (Joint Entrance Exam) and for other institutions through  their own separate entrance exams and other state level and national level exams. Apart from the IIT's,  some other famous institutes also recognize JEE scores for selection. Selection to the postgraduate courses ( M.Sc / M.Tech) in different universities is through an All India Combined Entrance exam conducted by JNU, New Delhi and to IIT's through GATE in Two year/ 4 semester M.Tech courses and through JEE in five year integrated M.Tech courses in Biochemical engineering and Biotechnology. 

Job Prospects & Career Options
There is an increasing demand for genetic engineers in India as well as abroad. Genetic engineers are mainly absorbed in medical and pharmaceutical industries, the agricultural sector, and the research and development departments of the government and private sectors.  They can also take up teaching as an option.
Genetic engineering involves developing hybrid varieties of plants, making a plant disease resistant by transferring genes from a plant that already has the characteristic, introducing Genetically Modified foods by changing the colour, size, texture of the produce of plants such as fruits and vegetables. GE in humans can be to correct severe hereditary defects by introducing normal genes into cells in place of missing or defective ones.
 Similar Career Options
›› Entomology
›› Meteorology
›› Food Flavorist/Flavor Chemist
View More...
A team headed by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland made history when they produced a lamp named Dolly, an exact genetic copy or clone of a sheep. This landmark discovery of the regeneration of an exact replica of a whole animal by transferring nuclei from the cells of that animal to unfertilized eggs of another animal, without the help of a male counterpart, has given researches a wide area open to be discovered. With this discovery, genetic engineering has become globally recognized.

CAREER :Becoming a genetic engineer: Education and Career Roadmap


Becoming a genetic engineer: Education and Career Roadmap

Genetic Engineer Requirements

Genetic engineers alter genes in order to improve the biological capabilities of humans, plants and animals. Their main goal is to help people lead quality lives. Genetic engineers who treat human patients with genetic illnesses are called gene therapists; they may be physicians who hold both medical and doctoral (Ph.D.) degrees. Other genetic engineers work in non-medical environments as biochemists and biophysicists, exploring living organisms such as plants used as food crops. The following table outlines the primary requirements employers look for in genetic engineers.

Common Requirements

Degree Level Bachelor's or master's degree for entry-level careers; doctoral degree for independent research careers  *  Degree Field(s) Biochemistry, biophysics or related fields  * Key Skills Strong understanding of scientific methods and rules, complex problem solving, critical thinking**

Computer Skills Ability to use computer aided design (CAD) software, graphics or photo imaging software, PERL, Python, analytical software programs and word processing software programs**

Technical Skills Ability to use lasers, spectrometers, light scattering equipment, binocular light compound microscopes, benchtop centrifuges or similar laboratory equipment**

Additional Requirements Excellent mathematical, deductive and inductive reasoning skills; reading, writing, and oral comprehension skills**

Step 1: Earn a Bachelor's  :DegreeA genetic engineer starts by earning a bachelor's degree, typically in a branch of the physical sciences, such as biology or chemistry. Some schools offer undergraduate programs in genetic engineering or in closely-related fields such as biological engineering. Curricula typically include rigorous courses in calculus, biology, chemistry and physics.

Step 2: Earn an Advanced Degree  :A bachelor's degree may be sufficient educational preparation for some entry-level careers in genetic engineering. However, many employers only hire candidates with advanced degrees (master's or Ph.D.). Advanced degree programs allow aspiring genetic engineers to gain valuable experience through laboratory-based research. To carry out genetic engineering research independently, one should expect to earn a doctoral degree.

Success Tip: :Be part of an internship program. While attending a graduate school, it is a good idea for students to participate in an internship program to gain experience. Universities often have fellowship and research programs that allow students to receive relevant training before leaving the academic environment. The Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other professional or governmental organizations in the field may post internship opportunities.

Step 3: Gain Work Experience :Genetic engineering is a broad field. Engineers can specialize in agriculture, healthcare and other specialties. They may work as molecular biologists, breast cancer researchers, forensic scientists and genetic counselors, among other positions. These careers can be found at universities, healthcare organizations, research and development firms, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and government agencies.

CAREER : Careers in Genetic Engineering

Careers in Genetic Engineering :
Careers in Genetic EngineeringGenetic Engineering (GE) is a highly complicated and advanced branch of science which involves a wide range of techniques used in changing the genetic material in the DNA code in a living organism. ‘Genetic Engineering’ means the deliberate modification of the characters of an organism by the manipulation of its genetic material. Genetic engineering comes under the broad heading of Biotechnology. There is a great scope in this field as the demand for genetic engineers are growing in India as well as abroad.A cell is the smallest living unit, the basic structural and functional unit of all living matter, whether a plant, an animal, humans or a fungus. While some organisms are single celled, others like plants, animals, humans etc are made up of a lot more cells. For eg humans have approximately 3 million cells. A cell is composed of a ‘cell membrane’ enclosing the whole cell, many ‘organelles’ equivalent to the organs in the body and a ‘nucleus’ which is the command centre of the cell. Inside the nucleus are the chromosomes which is the storage place for all genetic (hereditary) information which determines the nature and characteristics of an organism. This information is written along the thin thread, called DNA, a nucleic acid which constitutes the genes (units of heredity). The DNA governs cell growth and is responsible for the transmission of genetic information from one generation to the next.Genetic engineering aims to re-arrange the sequence of DNA in gene using artificial methods. The work of a genetic engineer involves extracting the DNA out of one organism, changing it using chemicals or radiation and subsequently putting it back into the same or a different organism. For eg: genes and segments of DNA from one species is taken and put into another species. They also study how traits and characteristics are transmitted through the generations, and how genetic disorders are caused. Their research involves researching the causes and discovering potential cures if any.Genetic engineering have specialisations related to plants, animals and human beings. Genetic engineering in plants and animals may be to improve certain natural characteristics of value, to increase resistance to disease or damage and to develop new characteristics etc. It is used to change the colour, size, texture etc of plants otherwise known as GM (Genetically Modified) foods. GE in humans can be to correct severe hereditary defects by introducing normal genes into cells in place of missing or defective ones.

Eligibility
Educational: A qualified genetic engineer, must have a graduate / postgraduate degree in genetics or related fields such as biotechnology, molecular biology, microbiology or biochemistry OR a doctorate (PhD) from a recognised university, based on 2-3 years of his own research under the guidance of a professor/lecturer.The basic eligibility criteria for a graduate degree (BE / B.Tech) is 10+2 or equivalent examination, with Biology, Chemistry and Mathematics as well as genetics as part of the biology OR a bachelors degree in science or molecular biology.Most institutes do not offer courses in Genetic Engineering as a special discipline but as a subsidiary in biotechnology, microbiology, biochemistry streams. Undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Biotechnology offer specialisation in genetic engineering.Selection to the graduate courses ( BE / B.Tech ) is based on merit i.e the marks secured in the final exams of 10+2 and through entrance exams. Entrance to the IIT’s is through JEE (Joint Entrance Exam) and for other institutions through their own separate entrance exams and other state level and national level exams. Apart from the IIT’s, some other famous institutes also recognize JEE scores for selection. Selection to the postgraduate courses ( M.Sc / M.Tech) in different universities is through an All India Combined Entrance exam conducted by JNU, New Delhi and to IIT’s through GATE in Two year/ 4 semester M.Tech courses and through JEE in five year integrated M.Tech courses in Biochemical engineering and Biotechnology.Personal Attributes: To be a successful genetic engineer, one must have sharp analytical mind, an aptitude for research, high levels of concentration, eye for details, lively imagination, abundant physical stamina to put in long hours of work, ability to work as a team, moreover he should have a sound moral sense.

Job Prospects and Career Option
There is an increasing demand for genetic engineers in India as well as abroad. Genetic engineers are mainly absorbed in medical and pharmaceutical industries, the agricultural sector, and the research and development departments of the government and private sectors. They can also take up teaching as an option.Genetic engineering involves developing hybrid varieties of plants, making a plant disease resistant by transferring genes from a plant that already has the characteristic, introducing Genetically Modified foods by changing the colour, size, texture of the produce of plants such as fruits and vegetables. GE in humans can be to correct severe hereditary defects by introducing normal genes into cells in place of missing or defective ones.A team headed by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland made history when they produced a lamp named Dolly, an exact genetic copy or clone of a sheep. This landmark discovery of the regeneration of an exact replica of a whole animal by transferring nuclei from the cells of that animal to unfertilized eggs of another animal, without the help of a male counterpart, has given researches a wide area open to be discovered. With this discovery, genetic engineering has become globally recognized.


NEWS : Genetic modification: Time for a more nuanced debate

Genetic modification: Time for a more nuanced debate:

Picking sides on genetic modification isn’t as easy as it used to beWhat is a person with a conscience to think about the fraught and complex issue of genetic modification (GM)? Picking sides used to be easy: if you were green, you were against GM because it was unnatural and industrial. It was a weapon of the same corporate behemoths who brought us the Green Revolution and its ensuing ecological devastation; who were using the patent system to force farmers to buy new GM seed every year – and who were exploiting their control of world commodity markets to impose “Frankenstein foods” on unsuspecting citizens.
If these were the developers and guarantors of genetic engineering, then their safety assurances were not to be trusted. If you were green, you preferred organic, low-input, agro-ecological methods of breeding and food production that maintained traditional landscapes and socio-economic structures, provided safe, tasty and nutritious food, combated climate change and protected wildlife. If you were a green activist, you risked prison to rip up GM crops.
On the other side were the free market capitalists and biological engineers, optimistic about GM, unfazed by its presence in the food chain, and in favour of field trials. For the big seed companies and their biotech partners, the business opportunities were breathtaking: a huge potential market; a range of products that had to be bought and used together, and could be protected by patent; and a political climate that favoured big agribusiness over small-scale, mixed farms. The products themselves addressed issues related to industrial agriculture only: the lack of natural predators to control pests, and the fact that industrial herbicides can also be toxic to the crops themselves.
The more nuanced aspects of this debate are beginning to find voice
Now, though, the more nuanced aspects of this debate are beginning to find voice. Leading environmentalists, including two of the UK’s highest profile ones, Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper, say that their minds are not closed as to the future of GM. Former anti-GMO activist, Mark Lynas, shocked delegates at the latest Oxford Farming Conference by saying, “For the record, … I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I … assisted in demonising an important technological option which [sic] can be used to benefit the environment.”
Although a group of leading environmentalists – including Porritt and Juniper – criticised Lynas for overstating his role in the anti-GM movement, many now believe that GM may be part of the solution. “We are trying to question the scourge of either/or-ism,” says Porritt. “The condition of the world is so powerless now, and the additional pressure of feeding a potential population of nine billion so great, that we have to optimise every available resource.”
These environmentalists, however, do not advocate GM as we have known it until now, with its concentration on pest resistance and herbicide tolerance in intensive monoculture. The claimed benefits of GM crops have been used, they say, to fuel the expansion of industrial agricultural techniques, which have contributed to a host of environmental and social problems, including declining soil fertility, water pollution, climate change and ecological devastation. Extinctions are running at between 100 and 1,000 times their natural rate. Agricultural bird populations in the UK have almost halved in the last 25 years. In the last 40 years, tropical biodiversity has dropped by 60 percent. The world’s richest savannah, the Cerrado, which covers 21 percent of Brazil’s land mass and is home to a staggering five percent of all known species, is being cleared faster than the Amazon rainforest to make way for soya, 80 percent of which is fed to livestock. Such alarming consequences are associated more with the industrialisation of agriculture and the global food system than with genetic modification per se.

Gary Hirshberg, founder of the leading U.S. organic dairy brand, Stonyfield Farm, says:

I’m not biased against genetic engineering. The potential is there for nutritional and other benefits to citizens; but there haven’t been any yet, and many of the promises have been disproven or have not come to pass. For example, despite predictions to the contrary by the patent holders, GM has led to substantial increases in herbicide and pesticide use. Consequently, weeds and pests develop resistance and farmers have had to move to ever stronger chemicals, in ever higher quantities. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that citizens in rural communities are now routinely breathing herbicides and finding them in the groundwater. We don’t know what the consequences will be for human health of these higher concentrations of environmental toxins, and we need to find out. At the very least, citizens need to know whether or not they are purchasing and eating these foods. Since there is no requirement to label products that contain GM, most Americans are unaware.

The answer, he says, is compulsory labelling.

Jonathon Porritt agrees: “Most people do not want to eat GM food, so when labelling is introduced, demand collapses. When producers in the U.S. were forced to label GM milk that had been produced with the aid of a genetically modified growth hormone called bST, sales plummeted and Monsanto was forced to sell the subsidiary that produced it. The horsemeat scandal [in which horsemeat has been found in many European products that are marketed as 100 percent beef] will force multiple retailers to be honest about where their meat and dairy products come from.”

Although the European Commission‘s attitude to GM seems to be softening, public attitudes in most European countries remain staunchly anti-GM, or deeply skeptical. As a result, no GM crops are grown in Europe. However, around 50 percent of grain imported to Europe for animal feed is genetically modified, and campaigners are calling for that, too, to be labelled.

If GM has let us down so badly to date, how might it contribute more positively in the future? For a start, Porritt cites the potential ability of non-leguminous crops to fix nitrogen. Fossil-based nitrogen fertilisers are a major cause of climate change and water pollution, so the potential ability of commodity crops to fix nitrogen without the use of artificial fertilisers could bring great benefits. Unfortunately, it is likely to be 20 or 30 years before they succeed, if they succeed at all, and plants cannot live on nitrogen alone; they also need phosphorous and potassium, so if they are to be grown in monoculture, or even in three-year rotation, they still risk exhausting soils.

The second advance might come in GM’s ability to improve resistance to environmental stresses, such as drought. The first such crop – a drought-resistant variety of GM maize – was launched last year by Monsanto and hopes to compete with conventionally bred drought-resistant varieties. No less than 34 such conventional varieties have been developed by a project known as Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa, which is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. According to the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, a research partnership dedicated to agricultural development, an estimated two million farmers in 13 African countries are already using these varieties, and have obtained higher yields, improved food security, and increased incomes.

According to Porritt, the expansion and improved productivity of small African farms is far more important than whether or not the crops they use are genetically modified. While Porritt and some of his fellow environmentalists are open to the potential benefits of GM crops, they consider genetic modification itself to be something of a red herring. Far more important is whether or not a new crop variety brings additional benefits for humans and the planet. If GM crops can prove themselves safe, effective, nutritious, eco-efficient and profitable, there is no reason why they should not be used.

Food manufacturers are also agnostic. “We don’t have a view on whether GM is a good or a bad thing in itself,” says Andrew Kuyk of the UK’s Food and Drink Federation. “We want raw materials at competitive prices that we can turn into products for our consumers. GM comes into that debate if we’re priced out of the market by it. There’s a risk of that happening in the UK and other European countries if we’re not more supportive of some of these new technologies, subject to objective scientific assessment and appropriate controls on use.”

However, Mike Childs, Head of Science, Policy and Research at Friends of the Earth, believes that the most promising solutions are not technological in nature. Childs’ top seven “hits” for a sustainable and secure food system are: eating less (and better) meat; restoring wild fisheries; cutting waste; growing a greater variety of crops (including “orphan crops”); replacing monoculture with agro-ecology; empowering women; and reducing poverty. WWF-UK also considers GM to be a red herring, too fraught with emotion and political posturing, and prefers to talk of solutions such as “less but better meat,” and waste reduction. Eating healthily, WWF-UK points out in its recent Livewell report, means eating more sustainably, too.

One thing on which everyone seems to agree is that GM is not the only technology worth developing. Perhaps the most promising alternative is Marker Assisted Selection (MAS). This is a non-GM bioengineering technique, made possible by our ability to map entire genomes. Once you have the genome of a crop fully described, you can use that information to identify traits that you want to import to the target crop from a related species. This might be a less popular commercial variety, a wild relative, or a so-called “orphan species” – an old variety that was abandoned by breeders looking for other traits. After marking the genes that express the desired traits, scientists can use conventional breeding techniques to transfer those characteristics into high yielding varieties of the same species, relatively quickly.

If technologies such as MAS can be used to promote the proliferation and improvement of organic, mixed, agro-ecological and other traditional or alternative farming systems, then there may come a day when the arguments over GM have lost their relevance, as they have for the development of medicines. For now, GM remains a highly emotive issue for those on both sides of the debate, and those left in the middle still struggle to be heard.

NEWS : Genetic engineering: Golden Rice

Genetic Engineering: Golden Rice 
Fourteen years ago, scientists developed a genetically engineered version of rice that would promote the production of vitamin A to counter blindness and other diseases in children in developing countries. In a few months, the Philippines will become the first country to start giving 'golden rice' out to its farmers. Bangladesh and Indonesia will follow suit soon, and India is seriously considering it. Good, but 14 years is rather a long time, isn't it? The number of children in developing countries who went blind from vitamin A deficiency during that time (half of whom died within 12 months of losing their sight) runs into the low millions. (The World Health Organisation estimates that between a quarter-million and a half-million children a year go blind from vitamin A deficiency.)
Golden rice contains beta-carotene, an orange-coloured pigment that is a key precursor chemical used by the body to make vitamin A. Sweet potatoes, carrots, spinach and butternut squash are naturally rich in beta-carotene, but ordinary white rice contains almost none. And rice is the most important food in the diet of about half the world's people. So what caused such a delay in getting it out to the farmers? It was created by Peter Beyer, professor of cell biology at Freiburg University in Germany, and Ingo Potrykus of the Institute of Plant Sciences in Switzerland in the late 1990s, and was ready for field trials by 2000. But the first field trials were delayed for seven years by protests from Greenpeace and other environmental groups, and crossing various regulatory hurdles took another six. Both the protests and the regulatory hurdles were based on the notion that genetically engineered plants are 'unnatural'. Which automatically raises the question: which human food crops are actually 'natural', in the sense that you will find them growing wild in nature. Answer: none.
That's why ecologist Stewart Brand has proposed the phrase 'genetically engineered' (GE) in lieu of the more common 'genetically modified' (GM) on the grounds that ALL domesticated plants have been genetically modified, by cross-breeding or by blasting seeds with radiation. None of them would survive in the wild. Gene-splicing is just a more efficient and neater way of achieving the same goals. Much of the early opposition to GE was no more than a superstitious fear of the unknown, and there was also genuine concern that it might pose health risks to consumers.
The way that GE crops were first introduced was bound to arouse opposition. In 1996, Monsanto, the world's leading biotech company, began to market GE versions of corn, soybean, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa that had been engineered to tolerate glyphosate, a very effective herbicide that the company had been selling with great success as 'Roundup' since 1974.
The patent on Roundup was expiring in 2000, allowing glyphosate to be made by rival companies. But in practice, Monsanto's patents on the new GE seeds extended its monopoly for decades more: farmers could buy glyphosate wherever they wanted, but to use it to best effect they had to buy Monsanto's herbicide-resistant seeds (called, of course, 'Roundup Ready').
Then Monsanto used relentless lobbying to get its GE seeds through the approval process and out on to the market. It succeeded in North America and most other major grain-growing areas, but not in Europe - and its strong-arm tactics created deep resentment and suspicion in many quarters. A decade and a half later, that still lingers. But it's now clear that GE crops pose no health risk. North Americans have been eating them for 15 years, whereas Europeans scarcely eat them at all, but there is no significant difference in disease and death rates that can be linked to GE food.
carbon dioxide emissions Meanwhile, crop yields have risen dramatically, herbicide and pesticide use has declined, and no-till farming that cuts carbon dioxide emissions because of ploughing has become far more common. The opposition to GE crops never came from farmers, and it's now in steep decline in the general public as well.  There are seven billion of us now, and there will be at least eight and a half billion before the human population of this planet stops growing. Moreover, as living standards rise in most formerly poor countries, diet is changing too and much more meat is consumed. To meet that demand, even more grain is needed. We are using 40 per cent of the land surface of the planet to grow our food. That is already too much, because replacing the complex natural ecology with our monocrop agriculture removes vital elements from the chemical and biological cycles that keep our climate stable. As environmentalist Jim Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis, put it: "We cannot have both our crops and a steady comfortable climate."
But perhaps we could have it both ways if we cut back to, say, 30 per cent of the planet's land surface devoted to agriculture, or 25 per cent. The point is that we must reduce the area we are farming, not increase it. The only way to do that is to raise crop yields dramatically. Genetically engineered crops may be able to meet that demand. There are no other proposed solutions on the table.

NEWS :Experts discourage genetic engineering ban

Experts discourage genetic engineering ban:
As genetic technology develops, the ability to change the genes of a fetus has moved from the realm of science fiction to a possible reality in the future.
Large-scale genetic modifications are currently banned in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, however other countries are experimenting with the practice, said Hank Greely, the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson professor of law at Stanford University. As other countries experiment with genetic engineering, the ability to change the composition of an unborn child’s DNA has raised a plethora of ethical dilemmas, with some groups calling for the practice to be prohibited all together. Although Duke researchers see issues with genetic engineering, most do not believe it should be banned altogether.
“Banning is not a productive way forward,” said Nita Farahany, professor of law, philosophy and genome sciences and policy. “Whether or not [genetic modification] should be allowed is a different discussion.”
In theory, genetic engineering of human zygotes could be used to alter the genes of a fetus that have been affected by a genetic disease. Ethical dilemmas have arisen, however, out of the fear that parents may attempt to change a fetus’ genes for aesthetic reasons or to endow the child with athletic prowess or intelligence.
“Such genetic modifications can become problematic if people start modifying fetuses for small issues that can be considered gratuitous use,” said Misha Angrist, assistant professor of the practice at the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy.
Farahany, a member of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, argued against a motion banning the genetic modification of fetuses at the Intelligence Squared U.S. debates on prohibiting genetically engineered babies February. Despite her motion against the ban, Farahany said she does not unequivocally support the procedure.
She noted that some forms of genetic engineering have proven to be safer than others. For example, changes in mitochondrial DNA, the genetic material that is passed from the mother to the fetus, have proven to be effective. Nonetheless, the impact on modifications in the nucleus of DNA is still unknown.
“A better way to regulate [fetal genetic modification] is to determine what procedures are appropriate and inappropriate, not ban it all together,” Farahany said.
Angrist said the fears associated with genetic engineering are not realistic concerns, but noted the difficulty in making precise predictions of its outcome. Another dilemma, he added, concerns the impact that modified genes would have on future generations.
“There are definitely concerns about germ-line genetic modifications since we would be making changes that could transfer to that fetus’ descendants,” he said. “We’d be mucking about in things we really don’t understand.”
Large-scale genetic modifications, however, will remain in the realm of science fiction for the foreseeable future in the United States since cytoplasmic transfers—which refers to the change in the arrangement of the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA—are currently banned by the FDA, Greely said. Because the FDA considers cytoplasmic transfers a drug, pharmaceutical companies would either need to challenge the FDA in court or gain the agency’s approval to test the safety and effectiveness of the drug.
“This is not a drug that will make a lot of money, and the research could be quite expensive and last for a number of years,” Greely said. “So one wouldn’t expect the private sector to decide to test [the transfers].”
On the other hand, it is unlikely to expect such research to come from the government as current politics prevents funding research of reproductive matters, he said.
Greely considers many of the arguments made by those opposed to genetic modification as “crazy and stupid” because there are many instances in which scientists have a moral obligation to prevent the spread of genetic diseases.
“Approximately 400 babies are born every year [with a mitochondrial disease],” Greely said. “If a mother wants to avoid passing a disease to her fetus, then we have to try.”

NEWS :Examples of genetic engineering: Rare but beneficial uses of modern biotechnology

Examples of genetic engineering: Rare but beneficial uses of modern biotechnology  :

After learning about human genetic engineering, many readers might want to find out about some examples of genetic engineering. Both bizarre and beneficial, the following article highlights some truly fascinating and pragmatic examples of modern genetic engineering.

The Biotechnology Forums, a website for professionals and students in biotechnology (the area that studies genetic engineering) recently explained some of these examples. The first animal example of genetic engineering is the spider goat. Yes, you read that correctly. A spider goat is able to produce the strong, stretchable silk used by spiders to create their webs. This silk web is one of the strongest natural materials known to man, stronger even than steel.

Nexia Biotechnologies Company inserted the gene from a golden orb-weaver spider into the genome of goat in such a way that the goat secretes the protein of the spider web in its milk. The milk was then used to create a what Nexia called (and trademarked) BioSteel, a material with characteristics similar to spider webs.

Beyond goats capable of secreting spider webs in their milk, there are a number of other really cool examples of genetic engineering in animals. In one redOrbit blog, this author reported about a cat that glows in the dark. The glow-in-the-dark feline has a fluorescence gene that makes it glow under an ultraviolet light. As the Biotechnology Forum outlines, here is how South Korean scientists first created the glowing cat in 2007:

“They took skin cells from Turkish Angora female cat (species that were originally tamed by Tatars, but was later transferred to Turkey and is now considered the country’s national treasure), and using the virus they inserted the genetic code for the production of red fluorescent protein. Then they put genetically modified nuclei into eggs for cloning and such cloned embryos are returned to the donor cat. It thus became the surrogate mother’s own clones.”

And why make a cat that glows in the dark? The researchers explained that this was no frivolous experiment and that potential benefits exist in medicine for treating and testing for human diseases caused by genetic disorders. And just today, researchers in Uruguay announced that they had successfully created a genetically modified glowing sheep. Though not directly applicable to medical technology, the researchers had this to say about the purpose of their research: “Our focus is generating knowledge, make it public so the scientific community can be informed and help in the long run march to generate tools so humans can live better, but we’re not out in the market to sell technology.”

Moving on, two other good example are the less-flatulent cow and the so-called Ecopig. As Mother Nature Network explains, cows produce a lot of methane gas, which is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to the greenhouse effect. So scientists at the University of Alberta identified the bacteria responsible for producing methane and designed a breed of cows that create 25 percent less methane than the average cow. This is one genetic engineering example that directly and practically addresses one of the major problems facing modern man.

The Ecopig (aka “enviropig” or “Frankenswine”) is yet another of the many examples of genetic engineering that positively contribute to the environment. The Ecopig has been genetically altered to better digest and process phosphorus. The reason is that pig dung is high in phytate, a form of phosphorous that farmers use it as fertilizer but which over stimulates the growth of algae which can deplete oxygen in the watersheds and thus kill marine life. The Ecopig has been genetically modified by adding E. Coli and mouse DNA to the pig embryo, which reduce the pig’s phosphorous output by about 70 percent.

Each of these bizarre examples point to some of the pros of genetic engineering, highlighting how researchers are striving to bring modern science and technology to the aid of humanity and some of its most pressing problems. Whether the goat that produces spider silk or the cow that doesn’t produce as much flatulence, these animal examples of genetic engineering shows biotechnology in action.

NEWS :Genetic engineering policy needs modification

Genetic engineering policy needs modification :
Writing in the Cell Press journal Trends in Plant Science, scientists from Spain and the United Kingdom argue that the European Union will be unable to meet increased demand for food and crops in a sustainable and environmentally conscientious way without its changing policy with regard to genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The authors criticise the ‘paradoxical’ approach to agricultural policy within the EU which has, they say, distorted the economic and regulatory harmony that was aimed for into a ‘fragmented, contradictory and unworkable legislative framework’. Since the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are not supported in – or, therefore, reflected by – practice, the EU damages not only the member states, but any chance they may have of fulfilling their humanitarian commitments going forward.

Professor Paul Christou, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA) research professor in the Department of Plant Production and Forestry Science at the University of Lleida’s Agrotecnio Centre for Research in Agrotechnology, addressed ScienceOmega.com’s questions on the paper.

What reason does the EU have to hold on to the attitude that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not acceptable, maintaining policies to prevent their cultivation? According to Professor Christou and his co-authors, the suppression of GE crops is reflective of short-term political and economic goals as opposed to long-term sustainability in agriculture, human health, and food safety.

"It is simply political expediency, as governments are under pressure from vocal minority pseudo-environmental groups," he said. "Furthermore, the organic lobby uses GM as a negative marketing ploy to misinform EU consumers on the dubious benefits of organic products. As we explain in our article, safety is not an issue and this has been settled for good.

"Green parties and the environmental groups which support them have vested interests and political agendas; some of the so-called ‘environmental groups’ make money by campaigning against GM crops. We have all been consuming GM-derived products in processed food – as well as meat from animals fed on GM corn and soy – for over a decade in Europe, and there has not been a single incidence of any adverse effect."

Rather than fulfilling the stated aims of the European Commission, the Common Agricultural Policy has arguably had the opposite effect by reducing productivity, sustainability and competitiveness. Despite the fact that research attests to the safety of GM crops, current policy actively discriminates against farmers wishing to cultivate them, undermining competitiveness in the agricultural sector. Addressing the double standards whereby GM products can be imported but not grown here would, say the scientists, confer many benefits, including improved productivity and environmental sustainability.

"It would stop the migration of high tech companies from Europe to the US and other more open-minded regions, such as in the example of BASF moving operations to the US and cutting back on personnel and research programmes in Europe," Professor Christou argued.

"Job opportunities would be enhanced for people at all levels in the agricultural sector, thus contributing towards reducing unemployment in the EU and providing opportunities for highly paid jobs. Additionally, European consumers would benefit from reductions in the cost of buying food which is currently imported because it is not allowed to be grown in the EU."

A de facto moratorium is in place on GE maize, cotton and soybean, for example, despite the very same products being imported from overseas in order to meet demand. Particularly in terms of animal feed, the EU is dependent on imports of GE products from Brazil, the USA and Argentina, where the technology has been embraced. Genetically engineered food products have been approved for consumption by the European Food Safety Authority, and the scientific evidence has been stacking up over the past two and half decades that GM crops do not pose a threat, as Professor Christou pointed out.

"There are no other technologies that demand zero risk, and certainly none with such impressive credentials that the EU could state in a report following a 15-year study involving 400 public research institutions and costing 70 million euros that, ‘Genetically modified plants and products derived from them present no risk to human health or the environment […] these crops and products are even safer than plants and products generated through conventional processes’."

In a subsequent report covering the next decade, the EU Commission reiterated that, ‘The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies’.

The question of whether people are right to be wary of the power wielded by large agricultural biotechnology companies in this arena, Professor Christou said, has nothing to do specifically with GMOs. Large multinationals dominate in pharmaceuticals and the electronics industry alike.

"Farmers in Europe and elsewhere have been quite happy to buy their hybrid maize from multinational agribusiness for at least 50 years, receiving substantial economic benefits themselves through access to better products," Professor Christou contended. "These hybrids show better performance, higher yields and are more profitable. They were non-GM until a little over a decade ago. Now that the very same hybrids are GM the issue of control of agriculture by agricultural biotechnology companies is put forward as a major issue. It makes absolutely no sense."

Professor Christou and his colleagues recommend science-based regulation and the removal of a political component in the approval process of GM crops as a means of improving the situation. Innovation and widespread use of the best available and most appropriate technologies – not just biotechnology – will encourage productivity, sustainability and a better environment.

"Most GM crops counter some of the most damaging practices of conventional agriculture and it makes no sense for EU policy makers to preach environmental sustainability on the one hand while denying farmers the ability to implement the policies that are best suited to deliver this on the other." 


NEWS : Qiagen Acquires Ingenuity genetic data processor 105 million

Qiagen Acquires Ingenuity genetic data processor 105 million :
(Reuters) - Genetic testing specialist Qiagen NV (QGEN.DE) said it bought privately held U.S. software developer Ingenuity Systems Inc for $105 million to expand further into genetic sequencing technology.
The deal, which the company expects will add to earnings per share from 2015, was announced on Monday as Qiagen cut its full-year profit outlook, citing U.S. government cutbacks that are hurting research institutions. Silicon Valley-based Ingenuity helps scientists and lab operators to structure and interpret the vast amounts of genetic data that new sequencing technology has made available. Devices pioneered by companies such as Life Technologies Corp (LIFE.O) and Illumina Inc (ILMN.O) have dramatically cut down the time and cost of sequencing human DNA. But this has created a bottleneck when it comes to the analysis and interpretation of the stream of new biological data. Qiagen, which last year bought Boston-based Intelligent Bio-Systems Inc to make inroads into the fast-developing genetic sequencing market, remains on track to launch its first sequencing device in the second half and now hopes its customers will also buy Ingenuity software to parse the data. "It's no longer enough to have a readout of all the data, you need to have database algorithms and an interpretative system," CEO Peer Schatz said in a statement.
The German company now expects adjusted earnings per share of about $1.13 for 2013, down from a previous target range of $1.16-$1.18, amid budget cuts in U.S. academic research and costs linked to integrating Ingenuity. First-quarter adjusted net income was flat at $54.7 million, slightly shy of the average analyst estimate of $55.9 million in a Reuters poll. Quarterly sales edged 2 percent higher to $303.6 million.

Monday, 29 April 2013

Next-Generation Transcriptome data and Invertebrates Vertebrates gap-

Reference-Free Population Genomics from Next-Generation Transcriptional Data and the Vertebrate–Invertebrate Gap :


  1. Abstract
  2. Author Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Materials and Methods
  7. Supporting Information
  8. Acknowledgments
  9. Author Contributions
  10. References
  11. Reader Comments (0)
  12. Figures

Abstract

In animals, the population genomic literature is dominated by two taxa, namely mammals and drosophilids, in which fully sequenced, well-annotated genomes have been available for years. Data from other metazoan phyla are scarce, probably because the vast majority of living species still lack a closely related reference genome. Here we achieve de novo, reference-free population genomic analysis from wild samples in five non-model animal species, based on next-generation sequencing transcriptome data. We introduce a pipe-line for cDNA assembly, read mapping, SNP/genotype calling, and data cleaning, with specific focus on the issue of hidden paralogy detection. In two species for which a reference genome is available, similar results were obtained whether the reference was used or not, demonstrating the robustness of our de novo inferences. The population genomic profile of a hare, a turtle, an oyster, a tunicate, and a termite were found to be intermediate between those of human and Drosophila, indicating that the discordant genomic diversity patterns that have been reported between these two species do not reflect a generalized vertebrate versus invertebrate gap. The genomic average diversity was generally higher in invertebrates than in vertebrates (with the notable exception of termite), in agreement with the notion that population size tends to be larger in the former than in the latter. The non-synonymous to synonymous ratio, however, did not differ significantly between vertebrates and invertebrates, even though it was negatively correlated with genetic diversity within each of the two groups. This study opens promising perspective regarding genome-wide population analyses of non-model organisms and the influence of population size on non-synonymous versus synonymous diversity.

Author Summary

The analysis of genomic variation between individuals of a given species has so far been restricted to a small number of model organisms, such as human and fruitfly, for which a fully sequenced, well-annotated reference genome was available. Here we show that, thanks to next-generation high-throughput sequencing technologies and appropriate genotype-calling methods, de novo population genomic analysis is possible in absence of a reference genome. We characterize the genomic level of neutral and selected polymorphism in five non-model animal species, two vertebrates and three invertebrates, paying particular attention to the treatment of multi-copy genes. The analyses demonstrate the influence of population size on genetic diversity in animals, the two vertebrates (hare, turtle) and the social insect (termite) being less polymorphic than the two marine invertebrates (oyster, tunicate) in our sample. Interestingly, genomic indicators of the efficiency of natural selection, both purifying and adaptive, did not vary in a simple, predictable way across organisms. These results prove the value of a diversified sampling of species when it comes to understand the determinants of genome evolutionary dynamics.


Introduction

Population genomics, the analysis of within-species, genome-wide patterns of molecular variation, is a promising area of research, both applied and fundamental [1]. So far such studies have essentially been restricted to model organisms such as yeast [2] and Arabidopsis [3], in which a well-annotated, completely sequenced genome is available. In animals, the population genomic literature has long been dominated by drosophila and human (e.g. [4], [5]). Interestingly, these two species yielded very different patterns of genome variation. The per-site average synonymous nucleotide heterozygosity (πS), for instance, is roughly twenty times as high in Drosophila melanogaster (πS~0.02 [6]) as in Homo sapiens (πS~0.001 [7]) coding sequences. The ratio of non-synonymous to synonymous polymorphisms (πN/πS) is substantially lower, and the estimated proportion of adaptive amino-acid evolution (α) substantially higher, in D. melanogaster than in H. sapiens [8]–[12]. These distinctive patterns are interpreted as reflecting differences in effective population size (Ne) between human, a large vertebrate, and drosophila, a tiny invertebrate. A small Ne in human would explain the relatively low level of genetic diversity in this species, as well as a reduced efficacy of natural selection due to enhanced genetic drift, which would increase the probability of segregation of slightly deleterious mutations (hence the higher πN/πS), and decrease the probability of fixation of adaptive ones (hence the lower α [13], [14]).

The human-drosophila contrast, however instructive it has been for molecular evolutionary research, is a comparison between just two species, out of the millions of existing animals. It is unclear whether the same picture would have been reached if a distinct vertebrate and a distinct invertebrate species had been sampled. Population genomic statistics in D. simulans were found to be essentially similar to those of D. melanogaster [15], and the central chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), although genetically more diverse than H. sapiens, showed genomic patterns consistent with a relatively low-Ne species [16]. These are knowledgeable corroborations, but from species very closely related to D. melanogaster or H. sapiens. A very high amount of synonymous diversity and a very low πN/πS ratio were reported in the tunicate Ciona intestinalis B [17]. This was interpreted as reflecting both a high mutation rate and large population size in this marine invertebrate species. Based on a small number of markers but many species, it was found that the average nuclear genetic diversity is higher in invertebrates than in vertebrates, and in marine than in terrestrial species [18], even though the difference is lower than expected from the neutral theory [19]. The influence of Ne was also invoked to explain the variations in non-synonymous to synonymous substitution rate between species of mammals [20], [21], and between populations of mice [22] and sunflower [23].

A recent population genomic study of the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), however, revealed large amounts of genetic diversity, and a πN/πS ratio similar to those measured in Drosophila [24]. Although perhaps abundant, rabbits, being vertebrates, are among the 5% largest living animal species. Observing a very low πN/πS ratio in this species is somehow surprising according to the population size hypothesis, knowing that density and body mass tend to be negatively correlated across species (e.g. [25]). Still in mammals, relatively high levels of genomic polymorphism in endangered primate species were recently reported [26], again questioning the link between current abundance and population genomic patterns. It should be noted that what matters regarding molecular evolution is the long-term Ne, averaged over thousands to millions of generations. It is therefore perhaps not so surprising that the Ne effect in mammals is not correctly predicted by species conservation status, as discussed in reference [26]. At any rate, the sample of metazoan species for which population genomic data are available is still quite small, and highly biased towards mammals. Genome-wide studies of additional species from various phyla appear needed to confirm or infirm the role of Ne in animal molecular evolution, and to explore variations of within-species genomic diversity across the phylogenetic and ecological dimensions.

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies potentially offer the opportunity to gather population genomic data in non-model organisms, in the absence of prior knowledge, at affordable cost. Genomes in animals can be large, highly repetitive and, consequently, difficult to assemble. The transcriptome appears as a valuable alternative target [26]. Transcriptomics gives access to large numbers of genes at relatively low cost, plus information about gene expression levels [27]–[29], with potential applications for SNP discovery and speciation genomics [30]–[32]. However, unlike PCR-based techniques, NGS does not return alleles or genotypes at well-defined loci, but rather large amounts of mixed, noisy, anonymous sequence reads. Extracting proper population genetic information from such data is a challenge, both conceptually and computationally. Starting from raw NGS transcriptomic data, one must assemble predicted cDNA, map reads, call single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and genotypes, and calculate population genetics statistics. Each of these steps requires appropriate methods and data-cleaning strategies to cope with paralogous gene copies, unequal expression level across genes, alternative splicing, transcription errors, sequencing errors and missing data, among other problems. Obviously, the whole task is especially difficult in the absence of a well-assembled reference genome.

Here we introduce a pipeline for de novo transcriptome-based NGS population genomics, which is applied to newly-generated data from five animal species – two vertebrates and three invertebrates. Based on samples of eight to ten individuals caught in the wild, we identify between ~4,500 and ~17,000 SNPs per species, from ~2000–3500 distinct nuclear protein-coding genes. For each species, we separate synonymous versus non-synonymous variants, and estimate the level of genetic polymorphism, the amount of divergence to a closely-related outgroup, site-frequency spectra, and adaptive evolutionary rates. We assess the robustness of these statistics to various SNP-calling and data cleaning options, and to the presence/absence of a reference genome, paying specific attention to the removal of spurious SNPs due to hidden paralogy. Then we focus on the between-species variation in the average synonymous and non-synonymous levels of within-species diversity. Our expectation is that small-Ne species should show a lower πN, a lower πS, and a higher πN/πS ratio than large-Ne species. This is because genetic drift, which is enhanced in small populations, is expected to reduce the neutral and selected levels of genomic diversity, but to increase the relative probability of slightly deleterious, non-synonymous mutations (relatively to neutral, synonymous mutations) segregating at observable frequency. Our analyses suggest that the vertebrate versus invertebrate contrast is not an obvious predictor of Ne from a molecular evolutionary viewpoint


Results

Target species

Table 1 lists the five species studied in this work. The urochordate Ciona intestinalis is a model organism for evo-devo research [33]. The existence of two cryptic species, called A and B, has recently been discovered [34], [35]. C. intestinalis A, which occupies the Pacific Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, was taken as the focal species in this study. The flat oyster Ostrea edulis is a marine bivalve of economic interest, which lives in the Eastern Atlantic coasts. C. intestinalis and O. edulis belong to two phyla, tunicates and bivalves, in which very high levels of within-species genetic diversity have been reported [17]–[19], [36]–[38]. The Iberian hare Lepus granatensis has attracted the attention as a model taxon for phylogeographic analysis and the study of speciation and reticulate evolution [39]. Its geographic range is limited to Iberia. The European pond turtle Emys orbicularis occurs in freshwater environments in Europe [40]. Both L. granatensis and E. orbicularis are terrestrial, medium-sized vertebrates, for which a relatively low Ne can be expected. The subterranean termite Reticulitermes grassei, finally, is a eusocial termite species occurring in Spain and south-west France, feeding on wood, and causing damage to human habitations. R. grassei is a small invertebrate, by far the smallest of the five species analyzed here. However, its effective population size is presumably highly reduced by eusociality – few individuals per colony contribute to reproduction. In the rest of the article, these five species will be designated as ciona, oyster, hare, turtle and termite, respectively.


cDNA assembly, read mapping, and genotype-calling

Table 1 describes the NGS data sets generated in this analysis. Nine to ten individuals per focal species and two to eight individuals per outgroup species were analysed. An average 7.85 millions single-ended illumina reads of mean length 89 were obtained per individual. In oyster, termite, hare, and turtle, 454 analysis of one or a pool of individuals provided an additional ~500,000 reads of average length 306. Roughly 50% of the data were newly generated for this study. The other 50%, i.e., eight individuals each of ciona (B species), oyster, hare and turtle, were previously used to investigate various cDNA assembling strategies [42].

The data analysis pipeline is illustrated by Figure 1, and fully described in the Material & Methods section. Depending on the species, between 28,000 and 85,000 contigs were generated by a combination of Abyss and Cap3. Illumina reads were mapped onto the predicted cDNAs using BWA. Genotypes were called using program reads2snps, which implements the maximum likelihood framework introduced by Tsagkogeorga et al. [17], in which the per-contig error rate is estimated assuming a multinomial distribution of read counts and the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. When the posterior probability of the best-supported genotype (either homozygote or heterozygote) was below 0.95, the position was coded as missing data. Classical population genomic statistics were calculated based on these predicted genotypes, after various data cleaning steps, using custom-witten C++ programs. The number of contigs available for population genomic analyses – i.e., contigs which passed the coverage and ORF length filters – varied among species from 1978 to 3661. Note that the 454 reads were only used at the assembly step, not for individual
genotyping.




Paralogue filtering

In the genotype-calling procedure described above, we assume that all the reads that map to a given position correspond to a single locus. It might be, however, that reads from distinct loci map to the same place. This is expected to occur in cases of undetected paralogy, copy number variation, and repetitive genomes. In such cases, variation between paralogues might result in spurious heterozygous genotype calls. We introduced a new test to detect and clean these spurious heterozygotes. Briefly, the rationale is to compare the likelihood of a model assuming one bi-allelic locus with the likelihood of a model assuming two bi-allelic loci, both carrying the same two alleles (see Material and methods and Text S1 for details). Among the sites at which at least one heterozygous genotype was called, those for which the paralogy test was significant (p-val<0.001) were discarded. Depending on the species, between 7% (ciona) and 37% (hare) of SNPs were detected as potential paralogues.


Quality control analyses

Our major analyses involve comparison of population genetic statistics between species, and so it is important to be sure that these differences are due to real biological differences and not methodological artefacts. We first analysed the variations and impact of sequencing coverage across samples and genes. The average coverage of the analysed contigs varied from 5X to 15X across individuals and species after removal of potential PCR duplicates (Figure S1), oyster being slightly less covered, on average, than the other four species. The observed heterozygosity (i.e., the proportion of predicted heterozygous sites) was calculated for all individuals. Its relative level of variation among individuals was minimal in hare (0.0013–0.0018), and maximal in turtle (0.0003–0.0017). Importantly, this value was not correlated with the average sequencing depth in any of the five species – individuals for which large amounts of data were obtained were not more (or less) heterozygous, on average, than other individuals (Figure S1). The correlation coefficient of sequencing coverage across genes was typically above 0.9 for individuals from the same species, and declined when individuals from distinct species were compared, consistent with reference [26]. No correlation was found across species between the between-individual variance in sequencing depth and the mean or between-individual variance in heterozygosity (result not shown).

Then, in all five species, the contig containing the cox1 mitochondrial gene was identified by BLAST and individually analysed. Cox1 is a highly-expressed, haploid locus for which homozygous genotypes should be recovered if nuclear-encoded paralogs (the so-called “numt”) have been correctly filtered, and contamination between samples avoided. In turtle, ciona, oyster and termite, cox1 genealogies revealed monophyletic species, and amounts of within-species mitochondrial diversity below 1% (Figure S2). Examining the predicted SNPs, we found a single (in oyster) predicted heterozygous genotype out of the ~40,000 genotyped positions. The average proportion of heterozygous genotypes across individuals and positions in these four species was 4.10−5, i.e., very low.

In hare, the cox1 tree revealed two divergent groups of L. granatensis haplotypes, of which one was more closely related to the arctic hare Lepus timidus. This is consistent with the documented introgression of L. timidus mitochondrial DNA into northern iberian populations of L. granatensis [39], [43]. A closer examination of the cox1 contig analysed here revealed that it was a complex chimera, i.e., a concatenation of fragments from the granatensis and timidus haplotypes, which are ~10% divergent from each other. Six positions in this alignment contained unexpected heterozygous genotypes. Five of them were located close to (<30 bp away from) the boundary between a granatensis and a timidus fragment. The heterozygous genotypes correspond to low-coverage positions/individuals, which occurred when most reads from a specific individual had mapped to a distinct contig – the hare assembly included several other highly-covered contigs homologous to cox1, of length 200–460 bp. When a minimal coverage of 30X per individual, instead of 10X per individual, was required to call a genotype (our “high-coverage control”, see below), all the unexpected heterozygotes disappeared. We note that such a situation – two divergent, highly-expressed alleles coexisting in the population, with each individual carrying a single copy – is presumably very uncommon. The results of our main analyses were qualitatively unchanged when the three introgressed individuals were removed from the hare data set. To summarize, our analysis of the Cox1 gene were consistent with previous knowledge regarding mtDNA evolution in the five target species, and revealed a satisfying behaviour of our genotype-calling procedure, in its basic or high-coverage version.

Finally, we investigated the geographic patterns of genetic variation the five analysed species by plotting between-individual genetic versus geographic distance (Figure S3). A clear isolation-by-distance pattern was detected in ciona, in which the Mediterranean and Californian samples were differentiated, and in turtle, in which some population substructure associated with Pleistocene glacial refugia is detected. The relationship was much weaker in oyster, and absent in hare and termite. These patterns are essentially consistent with the phylogeographic literature in these five species [40], [44]–[47], which is typically based on fewer loci but many more individuals than the current study. The concordance between these two sources of data provides additional corroboration for our inferred SNPs and genotypes.


Estimates of πN and, especially, πS were reasonably robust to the high-coverage control, even though fewer SNPs were called with the increased coverage/quality requirement (Table 2, row B). This is because requiring a higher quality decreases not only the number of predicted SNPs, but also the number of predicted homozygous positions. The slightly lower πN/πS ratio obtained from the high-coverage control might reflect a biological effect, i.e., stronger selective constraint on highly-expressed genes [48]. High levels of robustness were also obtained with respect to our “high-quality”, “threshold-free” and “clip-ends” controls (Table S2, row F, G, H).

Importantly, results were only weakly affected when reads were mapped on existing genomic references, rather than on predicted contigs (Table 2, row C). In ciona, both πN and πS were reduced by <10% in the reference-based control. In hare, the situation was a bit worse, with πN being reduced by ~30% when reads were mapped to the rabbit transcriptome, while πS was unchanged. Note that in the case of hare, the reference is ~5% divergent from our focal species, which might bias the sample towards evolutionarily conserved genes in the reference-based control. Taken together, the reference-based controls suggest that the uncertainty in cDNA prediction [42] does not impede de novo population genomic analysis from NGS transcriptomic data.

When potentially spurious SNPs due to undetected paralogy were not filtered out, the total number of analysed SNPs increased, as could have been expected (Table 2, row D). This change did not dramatically affect πS and πN, but a lower (i.e., more negative) FIS was obtained when the paralog filter was off. Negative FIS denotes an excess of heterozygotes, as compared to the Hardy-Weinberg expectation. This is unexpected from natural population samples, in which population structure and inbreeding typically result in a deficiency, rather than an excess, of heterozygotes. The observed decrease in FIS when the paralog filter was switched off suggests that erroneous SNPs/genotypes due to mapping problems are common, and that filtering them out is necessary. The slightly negative FIS measured in our main ciona and hare analysis suggest that the filter does not entirely solve the problem.

Our results were compared to an entirely different data analysis pipeline based on samtools [49] (Table 2, row E). The two approaches yielded similar results in ciona, but in hare πS was slightly decreased, and πN/πS substantially increased, when samtools was used. The same trend was observed in oyster, termite and turtle, to various extents (Table 2). To investigate further the causes of this discrepancy, we computed site frequency spectra (SFS) from the genotypes predicted by samtools versus reads2snps (our main analysis). Figure 2 displays the folded synonymous and non-synonymous SFS in hare. As far as reads2snps predictions were concerned, the proportion of low-frequency variants was higher in non-synonymous SNPs than in synonymous SNPs, as previously reported in human [13] and drosophila [50]. This is expected under the hypothesis of a prevalent influence of purifying selection on non-synonymous mutations. Such a pattern was not observed with the samtools-predicted SNPs, in which the synonymous and non-synonymous SFS were similar to each other, and similar to the SFS expected in a neutrally evolving, panmictic, Wright-Fisher population (Figure 2, left), in which the probability of observing a SNP at a derived allele frequency of k is proportional to 1/k [51]. The inferred SFS for the other four species are displayed in Figure S4. A pattern similar to the hare was observed in turtle and termite. In ciona and oyster, the contrast between the synonymous and non-synonymous spectra was weaker.



The samtools and reads2snps genotype callers differ in two main aspects. First, reads2snps does not make use of sequence quality data, and, instead, estimates the error rate, assumed to be constant across positions in a contig, from the data. When the analysis was restricted to high-quality reads only, reads2snps-based SFS were essentially unchanged (results not shown), which does not suggest that the treatment of sequencing errors is an issue here. Secondly, reads2snps places no explicit prior on the SFS, whereas the samtools caller uses a Wright-Fisher prior (equation 20 in [52]). This could explain the difference between reads2snps-predicted and samtools-predicted SFS, and especially the higher similarity of samtools-predicted SFS, both synonymous and non-synonymous, to the Wright-Fisher expectation, as reflected in Tajima's D values that are closer to zero (Figure 2, Figure S4).

Sequences from outgroup species were added to within-species alignments. Contigs showing extreme levels of synonymous divergence between focal and outgroup species (i.e., genes that exceeded the median dS by two standard deviations or more) were considered as dubious and discarded. Outgroup inclusion resulted in a strong decrease in number of analysed contigs,and a slight reduction in estimated πN/πS ratio (Table S2, row I). This presumably reflects a more accurate prediction of ORFs when data from two distinct species are available, and/or an increased level of selective constraint on the subset of genes for which orthology search was successful.


Sampling bias and variance

We examined the robustness of our results to individual sampling. We generated random sub-samples of five to nine individuals (all combinations), and re-called SNPs and genotypes. Figure 3 shows the distribution of πS and πN across sub-samples, as a function of sub-sample size, in turtle (green) and ciona (blue). In turtle, no sampling bias was detected: the average estimated πS and πN did not vary with sub-sample size. The standard deviation across all sub-samples was 5% of the πS estimate, and 7% of the πN estimate. In ciona, no bias was detected for πS, but the estimated πN slightly declined as sub-sample size decreased. The median πN across sub-samples of five individuals was 23% lower than the estimate obtained from all ten individuals. The coefficient of variation was still relatively low for both πS (8%) and πN (12%). The hare pattern was similar to turtle, and the oyster and termite patterns similar to ciona. The reasons for a decline of πN with sub-sample size in three species are unclear. The occurrence of this pattern does not appear related to the existence of population substructure (Figure S3). At any rate, this analysis indicates that our estimates of within-species synonymous and non-synonymous diversity are reasonably robust to sampling size, and that the sampling variance is well below the reported between-species differences.


Comparative population genomics in animals

The major part of the existing population genomic literature in animals is restricted to drosophila and apes. These two groups of species show contrasting patterns of within-species genetic variation, with drosophila being ~20 times as polymorphic as humans, showing more efficient purifying selection, and higher rates adaptive evolution. Here we uncovered the population genomic profile of five new non-model species – two vertebrates and three invertebrates. These five new species appear intermediate between human and drosophila in terms of genomic diversity (Figure 4). This suggests that the typical vertebrate versus invertebrate contrast is perhaps not as sharp as suggested by the human versus drosophila comparison. So far a single species, C. intestinalis B, has been documented to be more polymorphic than drosophila ([17], right-most circle in Figure 4), and a single one, aye-aye, as less polymorphic than human (based on just two individuals [26]). Still, the vertebrate versus invertebrate divide is apparent in Figure 4, in which all the vertebrate species show a per-site synonymous heterozygosity below 1%, and a per-site non-synonymous heterozygosity below 6‰. This is also true of the turtle E. orbicularis, the single non-mammalian vertebrate included in this figure. This result appears consistent with the hypothesis that effective population size (Ne) is generally higher in invertebrates than in invertebrates. The termite pattern is also quite consistent with intuitive expectations about population size: a colony of termites is comparable to many vertebrate species in terms of mass and life-history traits. Our report in termite of a significant deficit in heterogygotes (FIS>0.1) but no population structure (Figure S3D) is indicative of high levels of inbreeding, consistent with previous analyses in subterranean termites [61]. This tends to further reduce the effective population size in this species.

Species biology and ecology, however, does not explain every aspect of our data analysis. Hare, for instance, shows a lower πS and a much higher πN/πS ratio than rabbit, even though the two species are closely related, both phylogenetically and ecologically. The difference in πN/πS between the two species is even stronger when our samtools-based hare estimates are considered – i.e., the very data analysis pipeline used in rabbit [24]. Similarly, C. intestinalis A shows evidence for a smaller population size than its sister species C. intestinalis B – πS in A is four times as low as in B, and πN/πS twice as high – even though the two taxa are morphologically and ecologically indistinguishable. Finally, an unexpectedly low, vertebrate-like πS value is reported in flat oyster, despite the abundance of these marine animals in European Atlantic coasts

Most intriguingly, no significant difference was detected between vertebrates and invertebrates regarding the πN/πS ratio, even though πS and πN/πS were found to be negatively correlated across vertebrates, and across invertebrates. This is paradoxical: if a population size effect indeed accounted for the negative slopes within vertebrates and within invertebrates, then why not across the whole data set? Several explanations can be suggested. First, it must be recalled that the data points in Figure 4 were taken from several distinct studies, based on distinct gene samples, and distinct data analysis methods. Perry et al. [26], for instance, only selected SNPs covered at 30X or more, equivalently to our “high-coverage” control, which yielded a slightly reduced πN/πS ratio in ciona and hare as compared to our main analysis. It would be good to confirm the pattern of Figure 4b using a larger number species, especially non-mammals, and a common analysis strategy. Another potential methodological issue comes from our across-loci πN/πS averaging procedure, in which mean(πN/πS) is estimated as mean(πN)/mean(πS) (see Material and Methods), which might create a downward bias of unequal magnitude among species [12].

Alternatively, the distinctive behaviour of vertebrates and invertebrates in Figure 4b might reflect a true biological difference between these two groups of species. Differences in mutation rate, hereafter noted μ, could be invoked. The πN/πS ratio is independent of μ, whereas πS is essentially proportional to μ. So if μ was generally higher in invertebrates than in vertebrates, then a higher πS would be expected in the former than in the latter, for a given πN/πS ratio. However, let us recall that what matters regarding πS is the per-generation mutation rate. Published estimates of the per-generation μ indicate that this parameter is lower, not higher, in D. melanogaster and in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans than it is in human and mouse [62], [63]. So, even though a potential influence of μ on the pattern of Figure 4b cannot be formally ruled out, current knowledge on across-species mutation rate variations would tend to even reinforce the paradox.

Selection on synonymous positions might also be a confounding factor. The genes used in this transcriptome-based study are the most highly expressed ones, i.e., prone to selection on codon usage for translation efficiency. Selected codon usage, which is documented in Drosophila but not in human [64], leads to a reduction in πS, and therefore an increase in πN/πS, irrespective of functional constraint on amino-acids. In mammals, synonymous positions are affected by GC-biased gene conversion [65], a neutral process that mimics natural selection, and is also expected to result in a decrease in πS. Substantial selective contraints on synonymous sites for efficient splicing of mRNA and nucleosome positioning are also documented, especially in mammals [66]. However, we note that such effects should affect both the X-axis (πS) and the Y-axis (πN/πS) of Figure 4b, so that a non-neutral behaviour of synonymous sites, if any, should essentially result in a re-scaling of the axes, not a shift upward of a subset of data points.

Another potential explanation to this unexpected pattern would invoke a difference in the selective regime between vertebrates and invertebrates. For a given Ne, the πN/πS ratio is expected to increase as the distribution of selection coefficients, s, of non-synonymous deleterious mutations becomes more leptokurtic [67]. One could imagine, for instance, that metabolic and protein interaction networks are more complex in vertebrates than in invertebrates [68], [69], so that the average amino-acid position is involved in a higher number of physical interactions, reducing the proportion of effectively neutral sites in vertebrates. This is consistent with the theoretical prediction of an increased variance in the distribution of deleterious selection coefficients as mutational pleiotropy increases [70]. Between-species differences in the distribution of deleterious selection coefficients are documented, with animals (drosophila and caenorhabditis) showing a higher average effect and a lower skewness as compared to micro-organisms [71].

Finally, it might be that vertebrates and invertebrates differ in their biology in such a way that the neutral and the selected levels of diversity do not respond similarly to demographic variations in the two groups. The invertebrates of this study are high-fecundity species: very large numbers of propagules (eggs, larvae, alates) are released every generation, each with a very small probability of survival to adulthood. This life cycle results in a highly skewed distribution of offspring, in which a minority of progenitors contributes to the next generation [72]. This departure from the Wright-Fisher model distinctively affects the fate of neutral [73]–[75] and selected [76] mutations, so that πS and πN/πS might respond non-linearly. At any rate, our results revivify old questions raised at the onset of experimental population genetics [77] that have been left unsolved during the long time-lag required to be able to conduct population genomics in non-model species [78].

Concluding remarks

In this study, we showed that de novo population genomics in non-model taxa can be achieved based on transcriptome data. Our analysis demonstrates the contrast between vertebrates and invertebrates regarding πN and πS, with exceptions (termites), but detects no significant difference as far as πN/πS is concerned, questioning the hypothesis that neutral and selected levels of diversity are uniquely determined by the variations of a one-dimensional variable – i.e., Ne – across organisms. The methods developed in this study will be worth applying to additional animal species to explore further the influence of species ecology on population genomics, and the role/meaning of effective population size in molecular evolution.

Materials and Methods

Sampling and sequencing

Nine or ten individuals per focal species, and one to eight individuals per outgroup species, were sampled from three to ten localities across the species range. Details on sampling dates and locations are available from Table S1. Tissues were preserved from RNA degradation using liquid nitrogen, RNAlater buffer or Guanidinium thiocyanate-Phenol solution (Trizol and TriReagent BD ) was used for termites, hares and ciona. Silica membrane - SM kits (RNEasy, Qiagen) was used for hares and ciona. We previously developed a third RNA isolation method using combined GTPC and SM [79], used here for oysters and turtles. RNA quantity and quality (purity and degradation) was assessed using NanoDrop spectrophotometry, agarose gel electrophoresis and Agilent bioanalyzer 2100 system before external sequencing (GATC, Konstanz Germany). See Table S1 and reference [79] for additional details.

Five µg of total RNA of each sample were used to build 3′-primed, non-normalized cDNA libraries, sequenced using Hiseq2000 or Genome Analyzer II (Illumina) with 8 and 5 libraries pooled per lane, respectively. Fifty bp (termite) or 100 bp (other four species) single-end reads were produced. In hare, turtle and oyster, 25 µg of total RNA of one individual per focal species was used to build a random-primed normalized cDNA library. The latter was sequenced for half a run with GS FLX Titanium (Roche ). Low quality bases, adaptors and primers were removed using the SeqClean program (http://compbio.dfci.harvard.edu/tgi/).

Bioinformatic pipeline

Figure 1 summarizes the main data analysis strategy used in this study. For each focal species, 454 and Illumina reads were assembled in contigs – i.e., predicted cDNAs – using the Abyss and Cap3 programs [80], [81], according to method D in [42]. In this approach, 454 and Illumina reads are separately assembled then merged in a mixed assembly thanks to an additional Cap3 run. Illumina reads were mapped to the contigs using BWA [82]. For each contig, average coverage was defined as the total length of mapped reads divided by contig length. Contigs less covered than an average 2.5 X per individual were immediately discarded. Open reading frames (ORF) were predicted the program transcripts_to_best_scoring_ORFs.pl, which is part of the Trinity package (http://trinityrnaseq.sf.net, courtesy of Brian Haas). This program makes use of hexanucleotide frequencies, learnt from a first pass on the data, to annotate coding sequence boundaries.

For each position of each contig and each individual, genotypes were called using the method introduced by Tsagkogeorga et al. [17] (M1 model), specifically designed to handle transcriptome-based NGS data, and implemented in the home-made program reads2snps. Briefly, this method first estimates the error rate (assumed to be shared across positions) in the maximum likelihood framework, then calculates the posterior probability of each of the 16 possible genotypes knowing the error rate, assuming Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. When one genotype, either homozygous or heterozygous, had a posterior probability above 0.95, it was validated. Otherwise, the genotype was coded as missing data. In contrast with “variant calling” approaches (in which a homozygote is called in case of insufficient power to detect a heterozygote), no coverage-associated bias in heterozygosity prediction is expected with this method. Positions in which no more than 10 reads were available for a specific individual were also considered as missing. Prior to SNP/genotype calling, potential PCR duplicates were removed by collapsing sets of identical reads into a single read.

Paralogous gene copies are a potential source of spurious SNPs: if two distinct genes were merged in a single contig at the assembly step, then between-copy variations might be mistaken for heterozygosity. To cope with this problem, the detected SNPs were filtered for potential paralogy thanks to a newly-developed likelihood ratio test. Briefly, for a given SNP, the probability of the observed data (read counts for A, C, G and T in every individual) was calculated under the one-locus model used for SNP calling [17], on one hand, and under a two-locus model, on the other hand. The two-locus model assumes that two paralogous loci contribute reads to this SNP, with locus 1 contributing a proportion p of the reads. The two-locus model predicts an excess of heterozygotes (assuming that every individual carries and expresses the two loci), and correlated read count asymmetry across individuals (assuming that the relative contribution p of locus 1 is constant among individuals). SNPs were validated when the two-locus model did not significantly improve the fit, as compared to the one-locus model. In this test, potential departure from the 50%/50% expectation for read counts in heterozygotes was taken into account by assuming a Dirichlet-multinomial distribution of read counts, instead of a standard multinomial. Such an overdispersion of read counts is expected in case of allele-specific expression bias [83], and because of the stochasticity of allele amplification during library preparation [84]–[85]. Details of the method and simulations are provided in Text S1. The reads2snps SNP-caller and paralogue filter can be downloaded from http://kimura.univ-montp2.fr/PopPhyl/res​ources/tools/reads2snp.tar.gz.

Outgroup sequences were added to these alignments, when available. To achieve this aim, Illumina reads from the outgroup species were assembled using Abyss and Cap3, following method B in reference [42], and ORF were predicted as above. Orthologous pairs of coding sequences from the focal and the outgroup species were identified using reciprocal best BLAST hit, a hit being considered as valid when alignment length was above 130 bp, sequence similarity above 80%, and e-value below e−50. Outgroup sequences were added to within-focal species alignments using a profile-alignment version of MACSE [86], a program dedicated to the alignment of coding sequences and the detection of frameshifts. Contigs were only retained if no frameshift was identified by MACSE, and if the predicted ORF in the focal species was longer than 100 codons.

Codon sites showing a proportion of missing data above 50% were discarded. Then focal species sequences showing a proportion of missing data above 50% were removed. Alignments made of less than 10 codon sites after cleaning were removed. For each contig, the following statistics were calculated using the Bio++ library [87]: per-site synonymous (πS) and non-synonymous (πN) diversity in focal species, heterozygote deficiency (FIS), number of synonymous (pS) and non-synonymous (pN) segregating sites in focal species, number of synonymous (dS) and non-synonymous (dN) fixed differences between focal and outgroup species, neutrality index NI = (pN/pS)/(dN/dS) [88], and neutrality index calculated after removing SNPs for which the minor allele frequency was below 0.2 (NI0.2). These statistics were computed from complete, biallelic sites only – i.e., sites showing no missing data after alignment cleaning, and no more than two distinct states. The per-individual heterozygosity (proportion of heterozygote positions) was also calculated.

For each species, statistics were averaged across contigs weighting by contig length, thus giving equal weight to every SNP. Confidence intervals around estimates were obtained by bootstrapping contigs. Averaging population genomic statistics across loci can be problematic when ratios have to be calculated. The ratio of mean(πN) to mean(πS), for instance, is a biased estimate of the mean(πN/πS) if selective constraint on non-synonymous sites and neutral diversity are correlated across genes [12]. A correction for this bias was proposed [89], which is valid only if the number of synonymous SNPs per contig is large enough. This correction is not applicable to our data set, in which a majority of contigs are relatively short, and therefore include small numbers of synonymous SNPs.

The synonymous and non-synonymous site frequency spectra (SFS, i.e., the distribution of minor allele counts across SNPs) were computed based on predicted genotypes. To cope with the variable sample size across SNPs, we applied a hypergeometric projection of the observed SFS into a subsample of n = 12 sequences [90], SNPs sampled in less than n sequences being discarded. The synonymous and non-synonymous SFS were used to calculate Tajima's D [91], and to estimate the proportion of adaptive amino acid substitutions according to the method of Eyre-Walker and Keightley [53] using the DoFE program (http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Ada​m_Eyre-Walker/Website/Software) – an estimate we call αEWK. This proportion was also estimated as α0.2 = 1−NI0.2 [13]. We finally calculated the (per synonymous substitution) rate of adaptive non-synonymous substitution, ωa = α dN/dS [54].