From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 19:41:58 MDT
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 08:18 pm, Smigrodzki, Rafal wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom [mailto:mail@HarveyNewstrom.com] wrote:
>
> The literal answer is that it doesn't work. The glow-in-the-dark bunny
> didn't really glow in the dark.
>
> ### If I remember correctly, GFP and related proteins (yellow, orange)
> are not supposed to glow on their own - they only fluoresce under UV
> light. The purpose of the experiment was to derive animals with cells
> marked in a way allowing easy detection and observation while alive, to
> facilitate the tracing of cellular lineages and cell migrations in
> developing embryos. This previously was done with lipophilic dyes,
> which quickly diluted, or with methods involving fixed and stained
> tissues, like B-Gal. For its purpose it's a quite successfull product.
Everything you say is accurate, after the fact. These are the uses for
this process, under the conditions you describe. However, the genes put
in the bunny were for fluorescence. The scientists really did expect a
glowing bunny, and really were puzzled why it didn't work right. They
even still called it the glow-in-the-dark bunny as it had always been
termed, even though the fluorescence never materialized.
This does not detract at all from the valuable work that was done. I
was merely answering why they aren't marketing glow-in-the-dark bunnies.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:24 MST