Scientists Clone Red Fluorescent Cats
South Korean scientists have cloned cats that look reddish under ultraviolet light by modifying a protein gene to change their skin color.
The team at Gyeongsang National University produced three Turkish Angora cats possessing altered fluorescence protein (RFP) genes.
The Ministry of Science and Technology said, “It marked the first time in the world that cats with RFP genes have been cloned. The ability to produce cloned cats with the manipulated genes is significant as it could be used for developing treatments for genetic diseases and for reproducing model (cloned) animals suffering from the same diseases as humans.”
Also, the team stated this cloned cat research will be used to help reproduce rare animals, such as tigers, leopards, and wildcats, which are on the verge of extinction. The technology will also be used to develop stemcell treatments.
To clone the Turkish Angora cats, the team used skin cells of the mother cat. They modified its genes to make them fluorescent by using a virus, which was transplanted into the ova. The ova were then implanted into the womb of the donor cat.
Source: Korea Times, AFP
December 12th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Horrible. A reason to use cats and other animals for experiments!
JUST HORRIBLE!
December 12th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
That is the WORST thing I have EVER heard. Those poor cats… what a stupid ignorant thing to do.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Yeah, I don’t like this either! The dailymail’s article stated the following
“To clone the cats, Kong’s team used skin cells of the mother cat. They modified its genes to make them fluorescent by using a virus, which was transplanted into the ova. The ova were then implanted into the womb of the donor cat. Four kittens were born but two died during the caesarean section. ”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pag.....ge_id=1965
Has pictures of the kitties when they AREN’T glowing!
December 12th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Are the cats actually harmed? Do they suffer from the gene change? Riiiight.
As for the kittens dying during childbirth, how many actually survive natural childbirth at that? As soon as one of these glowstick kitties finds the cure for whatever ails you, you’ll suddenly think they’re the best thing since spliced bread.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:15 am
We were not meant to play god with the creatures we share this planet with. If we must try to be immortal by wiping out all our diseases and deformities, then why not test on other humans? Like say, pedophiles, murderers, rapists, etc.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Do they seriously expect us to believe that? I’m no expert but I think that’s a load of bull.
Firstly, those cats are at a decent age. If they cloned real cats and made them fluorescent, they would have shown them off at a much earlier age, i.e. when they were still kittens. In biological pioneering they generally have to show off their work publicly as soon as possible so others don’t steal the credit.
Secondly, ultraviolet light gives off a purple glow (which is not actually the ultraviolet light, it’s violet light coming inadvertently from the source of the ultraviolet, anyway), not green. Green is right in the middle of the visible spectrum.
Thirdly, on every single article linked here about this, I’ve only seen the one picture of this cat glowing. Just one picture. If it were a real achievement the scientists would take many.
Fourthly, the story in Amanda’s link tells that the man who supposedly created fluorescent cats has created a hoax with human stem cells and was found out and banned from experimenting with human biology.
Seems pretty unlikely that this story is even remotely true.
Tae: Even natural breeding, when “engineered” [ie especially breeding for show] can and does cause serious defects. Pretending for a minute that the story is true, the cats are a little less than a year old, there’s plenty of time for them to develop massive medical problems. And the chance of that is pretty high. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying it’s a possibility. You’re definitely right though about the childbirth. I had a cat give birth and if I can recall, about 3/4 of the kittens died.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:29 am
It does seem a bit suspicious, though, if possible, I wouldn’t put it past them.
Makes me think of all the mad scientists during the Holocaust.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:28 am
WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE?!?!?!?!?!?
But seriously, whoever heard of a virus that turns you fluorescent? I cry fake
December 13th, 2007 at 1:39 am
I too am inclined to think that this flourescent cat thing is a hoax. But IF it IS true, then I think it is one of the most immoral and diabolical experiments that “science” has developd.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Rick: For point 2, there are plenty materials that fluoresce green or red under a UV light. I imagine that, if it were true, they made the cats somehow produce one of those materials.
For point 3, the picture in the article Amanda linked to is different from the one in this article.
For point 4, the article Amanda linked to said these cats were engineered by Kong Il-Keun, and the human cloning hoax was Hwang Woo-Suk… different people. The article only mentioned them because of the dubious connection of them both being South Korean.
However, I have to concede point 1, and I too am skeptical that the story is legit… but I’m not entirely convinced it’s fake, either. Reserving judgement at this point.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:27 am
There was a longer article in a swedish newspaper. The thing they spliced into the cats genes is a special jellyfish dna… they’ve already done this with pigs before, they look light green in normal light and then glow in the dark just like the cats.
And these cats were born in january and february 2007, so they wouldn’t be ALL that small… but I still feel it’s too weird to be real. And even if it’s not, it still just doesn’t feel right…
December 13th, 2007 at 4:41 am
i can has glowing kitteh ?
December 13th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Hello? They’re cats. I would much rather they be experimenting on cats than on humans. As much as you folks may love animals, you have to understand that quality of human life is more important than quality of animal life, all the time. Without animal experimentation who or what do we experiment on? Free humans will not volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy, it’s cruel and unusual punishment to subject prisoners to experimentation, and cloning humans produces even more ethical problems than experimenting on naturally-conceived persons. One thinks this would cause much less of an uproar if they were cloning roaches or spiders instead of cute cuddly cats.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:54 am
To Steve: a murderer, pedophile or such has NO value any more. I’m sorry, but they are forfeit.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:48 am
“But seriously, whoever heard of a virus that turns you fluorescent? I cry fake”
Its not a virus.
They remove the fluorescent gene from a jellyfish and splice in into the cats DNA.
They’ve been doing it with mice for years, I had a professor who claims its not all that hard.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:15 am
What a wonderful IDEA! As far as I read, the cats are not suffering- this may save the cats life, if he wanders into the road at night.
SCIENCE IS GREAT PEOPLE! IT SAVES LIVES— I’m moving to Korea!
December 13th, 2007 at 8:19 am
“you have to understand that quality of human life is more important than quality of animal life, all the time.”
Actually, my cat’s life and comfort is worth more than yours. Fact.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Well, it has to be a real well played fake, and producing RFP or GFP (Red flourescent/Green flourescent) Protein Animals isn’t that hard either.
(Hard in the terms of Genetic engineering - It’s still not a science fair project for schools :-)).
They have done that with mice, bunnys and pigs
http://www.lafuga.de/GFP_pig.jpg
Here is the paper:
http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/.....7.065185v1
(Beware: there might be pictures in it you might not like)…
December 13th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Re Burtz’s comment at 8:19AM: Touche.
Re Leef’s comment at 6:54 AM: Touche.
To whomever questioned the use of a virus and doubted its use: One of the latest methods of introducing DNA into a cell is by using the virus as a host for the DNA. Think of the virus as a transportation vehicle. [Biologists, correct me if I misunderstand.]
However, my impression of the picture is that it appears to have had some creative lighting. I seriously doubt the cats glow. But I do believe the DNA was transferred.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
As previous posters have mentioned, this is certainly possible. You use a viral expression vector to transfect a gene - in this case GFP and RFP - into an embryo, then let it develop. This is a standard molecular biology technique used to visualize gene expression/localization.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
ACK - It’s not about breeding cats that glow in the dark so you can spot them more easier. It’s about developing tools and standards for transfection, or gene replacement/inserts.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Re: Lynn saying: However, my impression of the picture is that it appears to have had some creative lighting. I seriously doubt the cats glow. But I do believe the DNA was transferred.
The cats do glow as well as those pigs and mice chb mentioned. They probably put the cat directly on the UV light we use to read Western blots and such.
So yeah, this is such an easy process after reading the publication. They’re inserting the GFP in the same area we insert it into yeast and E. coli.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
To Steve:
I could not disagree with you more. What gives you the idea that all life revolves around us humans? As humans, we are 1) also animal life; it is not us vs. them. and 2) have a unique responsibility to protect ALL forms of life and not to exploit them. Lower animals are innocent creatures. They do not exist for us to experiment on just so we can live longer or better. I personally am sick and tired of the arrogance and hypocrisy that your view exudes. If you are a believer in a divinity, do you honestly pretend to think that your divinity would approve of the horrors we humans exact on innocent creatures and each other, all in the name of either science or religion? Take your pick.
I do not condone experimentation on any living creature, even “guilty” humans. But never, never on innocent creatures who no more asked to be born than we did. What is the expression? There, but for the grace of God, go I.
Steve, please look inside your heart and examine your views.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I THINK THAT THEY HAD BETTER LEAVE MOTHER NATURE ALONE, AND WHAT IS THE POINT ANYWAY. WHY DON’T THEY WORK ON FINDING A CURE FOR SOMETHIG. HOW STUPID!
December 13th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
“# Burtz says:
December 13th, 2007 at 8:19 am
“you have to understand that quality of human life is more important than quality of animal life, all the time.â€
Actually, my cat’s life and comfort is worth more than yours. Fact.”
Hear, hear!
Besides, our animal bretheren CAN’T give consent! What’s ethical about using a creature that CAN’T speak for itself?
I think this is very messed up. It will only lead to more animal torture.
~The Lioness
December 13th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Cindy says “I THINK THAT THEY HAD BETTER LEAVE MOTHER NATURE ALONE, AND WHAT IS THE POINT ANYWAY. WHY DON’T THEY WORK ON FINDING A CURE FOR SOMETHIG. HOW STUPID!”
Its not stupid. The process they have used to make the cats glow could also be used (eventually) to cure stuff. Because making cats glow is easier, they are using it as a test to refine the process. Therefore = not stupid. You don’t just go out and cure things straight away any more that you turn a rock into a computer - you have to work up to it.
Personally, there are types of animal testing that I find worse than this one. And almost all animal testing is a step up from fur farming. What would prefer, scientists modifying animals to help cure cancer, or farmers skinning animals to make rich people look pretty??
December 13th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
QUESTION: WHAT IF….
You are at your vet’s office, with your four footed friend of many years in its last hour of life. Your vet tells you that with a few skin cells from your beloved pet, he can hand you a puppy or kitten in a few months, identical down to the last gene to the friend you are about to lose. The loss many of us feel at the end of a special pet’s days can be turned into a new beginning.
What would you do?
I don’t know about anyone else, and while I sincerely doubt I’d opt for glow in the dark features, I believe it’s an offer I would accept.
I honestly don’t understand the mindset that advances in science are bad. These kind of arguments have been going since Og the caveman showed up with a pointed stick and the village shaman told him, “Tain’t natural to hunt like that.”.
Sheesh, there are days I think some folks should go hide in a cave, where they’ll be infested with vermin, be ancient at the age of 30, and the only reason they aren’t eaten by predators is their unwashed selves stink so bad a skunk looks tasty by comparison. Yuck! I’m in favor of benevolent research that potentially improves quality of life.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:11 am
[See Don Earl’s post before this one.]
Some years ago, several weeks after my dog died and had been cremated, I stumbled upon an article that addressed the subject of genetic replication/cloning. At that time it was a very iffy process, and not likely to be successful.
But yes, I’d do it! In a heartbeat.
As for the “glow in the dark” features….as someone pointed out, this could be a wonderful safety feature for animals out at night in the dark.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Lynn, I don’t know about your headlights, but mine are not UV. Don Earl, this is the first comment of yours I have ever disagreed with. Cindy, usually when “they” find a cure for something it’s a drug that causes worse problems in the end. How about finding the CAUSE of some disease in order to prevent it! As for experimenting on convicted criminals—we could probably even get them to consent if we gave them a year off for each experiment! Sounds like the best plan to me….And leave the poor animals alone!
December 14th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Leef says:
December 13th, 2007 at 6:54 am
> To Steve: a murderer, pedophile or such has NO value any more. I’m sorry, but
> they are forfeit.
Wow, nice. I’m glad we have you around to tell us whose lives have value and whose don’t.
-fred
December 14th, 2007 at 6:25 am
RE: “Don Earl, this is the first comment of yours I have ever disagreed with.”
It would be a very strange world if everyone agreed with me all the time, or even if someone agreed with me all the time. Actually, someone agreeing with me most of the time is unusual.
Far more frightening to me than cloning and genetic research is legislation by the superstitious to supress the creativity of that tiny fraction of one percent of the population capable of that level of creativity.
The research is going to take place whether we like or not. If we’re lucky, we might have a say in seeing it take place in the light of day, rather than in a clandestine lab with no public oversight whatsoever.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Steve,
You are such a gi-normous TOOL. Any one actually involved in the field of science and medicine will tell you that animal physiology is so unlike that of humans that research on animals for human meds is just irrelevant. Look at experiments involving DES - how many lives were ruined by using irrelevant research data?
December 14th, 2007 at 11:44 am
For those complaining about the unethicalness of research on animals…where would you get the medicine for your own precious pets if such research was outlawed? And really, nowadays you have to follow pretty strict humane care guidelines if you want your lab to be reputable.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:16 am
LOLZ GLOWSTICK CATS. GREAT FOR YOUR NEXT RAVE! XDDDD
December 15th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Philp:
Good point, I didn’t notice that the pictures were slightly different, I thought on first glance that they were just horizontally flipped. Also didn’t notice that the guy who got banned was a different guy.
Although I didn’t mean that glowing red or green under UV lights was improbable. That part I believed. But according to the original article, the cat on the right which appears green is an “ordinary”, unaffected cat. If an ordinary white cat were to be seen under an ordinary UV light, it would appear purple, not green, because purple (well, technically violet) is the closest colour in the visible spectrum to UV light. That part’s still a little fishy to me. The only way it would work is if they had both a UV light and a visible green light, on purpose, even though there’s no real reason to add a green light to it (unless they specifically wanted Christmas colours, lol.)
However. I just saw this story briefly on the local news this morning. It had a video of the cats, instead of these dubious pictures that could easily have been photoshopped in five minutes. And I’m sure they wouldn’t have aired the story without just a little more proof than we have here. So, I’m starting to think it’s real, now.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
i think it is fine unless the cats will be in pain there hole lives or if they die other wise i think it is fine
December 17th, 2007 at 9:04 am
People need to stop saying that “we shouldn’t play god.” First off, you can’t play a role that doesn’t exist, and second…just get over it.
For all we know, the future could hold animals genetically made to be a running anti-tank bomb!
December 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
You guys can all hate me but I want a fluorescent cat really bad. I went to FluorescentCats.com because I read that they were taking reservations if these fluorescent cats become available to pet owners. Anyway their comment button was disabled when I was on their site so I didn’t get to reserve one.
I think that if a cat is in the hands of a loving, caring pet owner, then it doesn’t matter what cat it is…tabby, fluorescent, etc.
But I want one really bad and I want to name it Rave!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 8:40 am
This is totally cool!
I dont see any harm in what has transpired here. It seems that these are completely normal cats that have been cloned from skin cells of another cat. The fact that these cats were “altered” before they were “born” means that they did not suffer in any shape or form. It doesnt seem to me that these cats have any physical issues, they probably act like normal cats would and they probably dont even know that they glow red under ultra-violet light. So, for all you whiners out there, what is the problem with this?
Alot more good can come out of something like this. These people are learning alot about cats and maybe one day can identify, save, or cure your cat’s illness.
The problem with the world today is there are too many people that dont understand the process or purpose of an experiment. Because of thier ignorance they complain and ruin something that could potentially be the best thing that happened since the theory of relativity.
If you have a problem with it, learn more about it and backup you complaints with fact and not assumptions.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:01 am
I WANT A GLOW-CAT!
And soon, GLOW-PEARS!
Just like that Ducktales ep.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
iz it can be glow tiem now plz?
April 11th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Well, I can tell you this has been determined as true.
It’s the GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein) that is found in jelly fish and often used for PGLO and Bacterial transformation. (Bacterial transformation being the process by which competent bacterial cells pick up DNA from the environment and make use of the genes it carries) They mostly do this with mice.
However the cats have been found to hit a soft spot with breeders.
Pretty much they just take the GFP and using bacterial transformation place it in the plasmid of the DNA …It is mostly done in trials
You place the GFP gene into the cells to figure out who did the crime. By glowing you are able to see more blood in a crime scene also. GFP is generally just a visual evidence of successful transformation and subsequent gene expression.
personally I have seen and done this experiment
1) for bacterial transformation into E. coli
and
2) for mice.
this would never be done on humans because of the moral and ethical dilemma.
The mice are fluorescent all the way through including the organs.
It’s rather interesting.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
This is not immoral, however it is suspicious.
science has to find some way to break boundaries, and i dont believe that using animals is horrible. they could use humans, but the beuracracy that would go into that wouldnt even be worth it. it’s “cruel and unusual”.
things glow all colours under ultraviolet light. how do you think bees see? everything isnt purple, it has different shades and a different spectrum.
i think if this is real, it’s a breakthrough.
and as soon as one of you nay - sayers develop cancer of the throat, you’ll LOVE this.
-Cheers.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
1. to:Rose, Cameron, Amanda, so you would rather see the human race die out from some disease, and probably save a few endangered species, than accidentally harm a few cats or dogs or whatever. god, you people!!
2. to:the people who are saying:What have we/science done?: IF IT WASN’T FOR F@$KING SCIENCE YOU WOULDN’T HAVE YOU’RE F@$KING COMPUTER WITH WHICH YOU ARE WRITING YOU CONDESCENDING F@$KING COMMENTS!!!!!!! god, think before you speak!!!!!!!
August 19th, 2008 at 9:19 am
i think they should just stop cloning dogs and cats! Yea i now how it feels to lose ur cat or dog but thats the thing about life!!!! its silly to get ur cat or dog cloned…besides its not really ur real cat or dog in the first place. Just wait 2 months and clam ur self down if u were really sad and go get a new pet!!!!!!
August 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
aww! how cool! it’d be fun to take one of them trick or treating. or in the house, cuz then you couldnt trip on them in the dark! genious. if they put them on the market little kids would love them.