For the next few weeks, we’re going to try something a little different. One of our Validation Managers has picked a “hot topic” that hasn’t been talked about much anywhere else, and would like to present it in the manner of an open discussion forum so that all of our blog readers, as well as our other blog writers, can learn from each other. The topic for the next couple of weeks highlights drugs that are the result of genetic engineering. We hope you find this to be a really cool and unique opportunity, and will gladly do it again with another topic if our readers enjoy this.
__________________________________________________
OF COURSE I’VE HEARD OF COWS…
…but have you ever heard the buzzwords “pharming” or “biopharming” before? The terms refer to a growing sector of FDA-regulated industry that uses recombinant DNA technologies to genetically engineer (GE) animals (pharming) or plants (biopharming) to generate proteins and protein metabolites that they would not otherwise be capable of creating.
Such products might be delivered to a patient in a variety of ways:
- Through ingestion, perhaps as an "edible vaccine"; such was conducted as "proof of concept" by the University of Maryland's School of Medicine ('98) www.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/1998/pages/ediblevacc.aspx
- Through injection, as with the first FDA-approved transgenic animal product, which is produced in the milk of goats genetically modified to produce the anti-clotting drug Atryn (FDA-approved in 2009, approved in 2006 by EMEA) www.transgenics.com/pressreleases/pr020609.html
- Through body contact, perhaps through patches, lotions, or even clothing articles
Pharming has an innovative (and to this author, fascinating) approach to mass-production of drug products, with obvious advantages compared to more traditional processes, including cheaper facilities (e.g. farms), flexible scale-up and scale-down capabilities (e.g. breeding programs), and, to a degree, renewable/reusable bioreactors (e.g. plants or animals).
And the potential lucrativeness of these ventures is no joke! Case in point: a fairly recent Scientific American article (see: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=atryn-pharming-goats-transgenic) estimated start-up for a standard mammalian cell bioreactor facility producing 100kg/year of a drug to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, while an equivalent-volume farm could be put into service for only tens of millions of dollars, and with far cheaper operating costs – “at literally chicken feed with our chickens,” as one manufacturer put it.
While DNA was discovered as early as 1869 and its genetic ties identified in the early 1950s, and despite the fact that human drug manufacturers using transgenic recombinant DNA techniques have been around since the 1970s, regulations remain largely unspecific toward this type of process. As you can surely imagine, the relative novelty and complexity of the products and their production processes place pharmed proteins in what often seem like “uncharted waters” for development and regulatory approval.
In fact (confirmable through the below-referenced website), the U.S. government has not issued any new legislation (Acts) specific to GE products, instead relying on predicate health and safety laws to regulate them. However, regulatory agencies have issued some interesting and helpful guidelines that help manufacturers to address the special needs for these types of products. These are managed through a tripartite arrangement between government agencies, called the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, which is responsible for jointly overseeing all such products. This framework was authorized in 1986 (51 FR 23302; also refer to http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/). It is noted that the European Union has gone a bit further than the U.S., with an official Directive (2001/18/EC) and numerous derivative regulations and guidances specific to transgenic organisms ( see http://www.biotethics.org/downloads/articles/EU%20Legislation%20GMOs.pdf for a comprehensive list, as of 2006, with hyperlinks).
Of course, where the genetic enhancement of a living organism is concerned, there is always political and humane-interest controversy. We will take a closer look at the controversy next week as we explore the current world of transgenic plants, and the week after with transgenic animals.
More on this topic next week...stay tuned!
Questions To Our Readers:
1) Have you ever heard of or been involved with (as a manufacturer or a user) any really cool products created through genetic engineering?
2) Given that the technology has been around for nearly 40 years, do you have any thoughts as to why there are few of these products yet on the market?
3) There’s been quite a bit of controversy, public opinion, and even fear out there regarding therapeutic products like these. Are there any risks and benefits about this biotechnology or the products that either scare you or thrill you? Do you think genetic engineering products, either or both from plants and/or animals, is a good idea?
Let's get a discussion started!
Please share your answers in the comment section below!
Please share your answers in the comment section below!
I ran across this article by chance and found it to be very intriguing. I must profess – I am a true layperson when it comes to this topic however here are my thoughts to the questions posed!
ReplyDelete1. The article makes me think of Dolly the cloned sheep… whatever happened to her? Also I have never been involved with products created through genetic engineering. I would be interested to see if they taste better than cherry flavored cough syrup.
2. There is probably a direct relation between this question and number three – Social acceptance and the fear of not knowing probably has hindered this biotechnology growth.
3. I am generally an optimistic person so I feel this should be actively pursued however pursing this for the greater good or for personal financial benefits and not having a full understanding of the associated risks or negative consequences (lack of preparedness) typically does not end well… just ask all the residence of the Gulf cost. Lastly, some crazy thoughts I formed from this article were – Darwinism on steroids, Morphed species and an entire new way of life as we know it!
On 14 February 2003, Dolly was euthanised because she had a progressive lung disease and severe arthritis. A Finn Dorset such as Dolly has a life expectancy of around 11 to 12 years, but Dolly lived to be only six years of age. A post-mortem examination showed she had a form of lung cancer called Jaagsiekte, which is a fairly common disease of sheep and is caused by the retrovirus JSRV. Roslin scientists stated that they did not think there was a connection with Dolly being a clone, and that other sheep in the same flock had died of the same disease. Such lung diseases are a particular danger for sheep kept indoors, and Dolly had to sleep inside for security reasons.
ReplyDeleteSome have speculated that a contributing factor to Dolly's death was that she could have been born with a genetic age of six years, the same age as the sheep from which she was cloned. One basis for this idea was the finding that Dolly's telomeres were short, which typically is a result of the ageing process. The Roslin Institute have stated that intensive health screening did not reveal any abnormalities in Dolly that could have come from advanced ageing.
Thanks for your feedback!
ReplyDeleteDolly's story can be found most easily on Wikipedia; I believe the previous respondent quoted to you from there.
Genetic engineering such as cloning does not involve introducing foreign species DNA involved. I will make sure to illustrate cisgenics vs transgenics over the next couple weeks. The primary focus of this series will be transgenics, creating a plant or animal that can make a product or show a trait they wouldn't otherwise have had in their genomes. For a preview, check out glo-fish. And the glow in the dark bunnies...
-Paul Melamud (article author)