Horizontal gene transfer is generally the transfer of functional genes between unrelated organisms, so it's a bit mis-leading to call the transfer of BovB horizontal gene transfer. BovB is a transposon, in essence a small piece of semi-autonomous DNA that jumps between DNA strands as a virus may transfer between cells. It isn't a "snake" gene.
The article mentions that BovB possibly transferred between species using viruses as vectors. The article below [0] mentions that BovB is one of the most abundant transposons in mammals.
Horizontal gene transfer is also a potentially neglected danger with genetic engineering. If you introduce a gene to a plant, for example for resistance against herbicides, it can't just jump to its offspring, but also potentially to completely different plants, and weeds.
I looked that up. It appears that glyphosphate resistance in Palmer amaranth and some other species is due to duplication of their own EPSPS genes, not horizontal transfer from genetically engineered crops.
_Glyphosate Resistance and EPSPS Gene Duplication: Convergent Evolution in Multiple Plant Species_
It's a "natural" response to the high usage of glyphosphate, similar to the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria as a response to antibiotic drugs.
If herbicide resistance requires more than one gene, a solution to that is to just add those genes at widely separate places in the plant's genome. This would make horizontal transfer of the entire working set of genes unlikely.
Yes, but that wouldn't cover you for the unknown side effects of having a partial gene transferred to another specie with no way to know if in another context it could be express differently, with powerful effects.
The problem with complex systems with million of inter-dependent variables is that the unknown unknowns are too many and the only effective filter is time. However with those technologies ability to introduce powerful changes very fast, and little incentive from companies making them to allocate a lot of time, resources and prudence to study their aftermaths, the asymmetry of risk is not playing in our favor.
It seems to be well understood by scientists, and much of science is carried out in the open, so it begs the question - who is neglecting it? It may be relevant to include those details so we know.
>It seems to be well understood by scientists, and much of science is carried out in the open
neglected doesn't mean a lack of knowlege.
>to give little attention or respect to[0].
In fact it usually implies a presence of knowledge that is... neglected. So in this case it would be anyone who ignores this danger. For illustration a simplified example could be something like a growth gene that spreads to weeds.
Readit News
The article mentions that BovB possibly transferred between species using viruses as vectors. The article below [0] mentions that BovB is one of the most abundant transposons in mammals.
[0] Horizontal transfer of BovB and L1 retrotransposons in eukaryotes https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29983116/
_Glyphosate Resistance and EPSPS Gene Duplication: Convergent Evolution in Multiple Plant Species_
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29040588/
It's a "natural" response to the high usage of glyphosphate, similar to the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria as a response to antibiotic drugs.
The problem with complex systems with million of inter-dependent variables is that the unknown unknowns are too many and the only effective filter is time. However with those technologies ability to introduce powerful changes very fast, and little incentive from companies making them to allocate a lot of time, resources and prudence to study their aftermaths, the asymmetry of risk is not playing in our favor.
neglected doesn't mean a lack of knowlege.
>to give little attention or respect to[0].
In fact it usually implies a presence of knowledge that is... neglected. So in this case it would be anyone who ignores this danger. For illustration a simplified example could be something like a growth gene that spreads to weeds.
>so it begs the question
Do you mean to say "so it raises the question?"
[0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neglect
Edit - 1993. Also I think it was filling missing dan from the frog which then changes gender. Very relevant these days