scholarly journals Public Deliberation about Gene Editing in the Wild

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael K. Gusmano ◽  
Gregory E. Kaebnick ◽  
Karen J. Maschke ◽  
Carolyn P. Neuhaus ◽  
Ben Curran Wills
Keyword(s):  
Gene Editing ◽  
Public Deliberation ◽  
In The Wild

scholarly journals The Decision Phases Framework for Public Engagement: Engaging Stakeholders about Gene Editing in the Wild

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kathleen Barnhill‐Dilling ◽  
Adam Kokotovich ◽  
Jason A. Delborne
Keyword(s):  
Public Engagement ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
In The Wild

scholarly journals Gene Editing in the Wild: Who Decides—and How?

BioScience ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 316-316
Author(s):  
Niki Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Gene Editing ◽  
In The Wild

scholarly journals Can CRISPR-based gene drive be confined in the wild? A question for molecular and population biology

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Marshall ◽  
Omar S. Akbari
Keyword(s):  
Population Biology ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Gene Drive ◽  
In The Wild ◽  
Drive Systems ◽  
Chain Drives

AbstractThe recent discovery of CRISPR and its application as a gene editing tool has enabled a range of gene drive systems to be engineered with much greater ease. In order for the benefits of this technology to be realized, drive systems must be developed that are capable of both spreading into populations to achieve their desired impact, and being recalled in the event of unwanted consequences or public disfavor. We review the performance of three broad categories of drive systems at achieving these goals - threshold-dependent drives, homing-based drive and remediation systems, and temporally self-limiting systems such as daisy-chain drives.

scholarly journals Envisioning Complex Futures: Collective Narratives and Reasoning in Deliberations over Gene Editing in the Wild

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Curran Wills ◽  
Michael K. Gusmano ◽  
Mark Schlesinger
Keyword(s):  
Gene Editing ◽  
Collective Narratives ◽  
In The Wild

scholarly journals Empowering Indigenous Knowledge in Deliberations on Gene Editing in the Wild

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Riley Taitingfong ◽  
Anika Ullah
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Knowledge ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
In The Wild

scholarly journals Narratives in Public Deliberation: Empowering Gene Editing Debate with Storytelling

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaiping Chen ◽  
Michael M. Burgess
Keyword(s):  
Gene Editing ◽  
Public Deliberation

Freeze-substituted fungal cells of Nectria haematococca: A comparison of the macroconidial walls of the adhesion-competent wild type with an adhesion-reduced mutant

1990 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 688-689
Author(s):  
Thecan Caesar-Ton That ◽  
Lynn Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Freeze Substitution ◽  
Uranyl Acetate ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Nectria Haematococca ◽  
Fruit Extract ◽  
Dialysis Tubing ◽  
Tube Emergence ◽  
Contrast Microscopy ◽  
In The Wild ◽  
Freeze Damage

Nectria haematococca mating population I (anamorph, Fusarium solani) macroconidia attach to its host (squash) and non-host surfaces prior to germ tube emergence. The macroconidia become adhesive after a brief period of protein synthesis. Recently, Hickman et al. (1989) isolated N. haematococca adhesion-reduced mutants. Using freeze substitution, we compared the development of the macroconidial wall in the wild type in comparison to one of the mutants, LEI.Macroconidia were harvested at 1C, washed by centrifugation, resuspended in a dilute zucchini fruit extract and incubated from 0 - 5 h. During the incubation period, wild type macroconidia attached to uncoated dialysis tubing. Mutant macroconidia did not attach and were collected on poly-L-lysine coated dialysis tubing just prior to freezing. Conidia on the tubing were frozen in liquid propane at 191 - 193C, substituted in acetone with 2% OsO4 and 0.05% uranyl acetate, washed with acetone, and flat-embedded in Epon-Araldite. Using phase contrast microscopy at 1000X, cells without freeze damage were selected, remounted, sectioned and post-stained sequentially with 1% Ba(MnO4)2 2% uranyl acetate and Reynold’s lead citrate. At least 30 cells/treatment were examined.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document