Gathering Samples for Dog Cloning: What to Collect?

[mattmns]

What do I need to collect from my dog to be able to clone him? Blood? Saliva? If he were to die today would I still be able to collect whatever I needed? Would I need to refrigirate or do anything with this sample to ensure that it will work?

Thanks.

 

[gerben]

The general idea is that any mature cell with intact nucleus would do (so not a red blood cel, but a white blood cel could be good), some saliva would probably be ok. However, this far nobody has succeeded in cloning a dog, but a cat has already been done:
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-03-04/204.asp

 

[mattmns]

Yeah I remember reading about the cats. Thanks for the link and info

 

[gerben]

A dog has been cloned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4742453.stm

 

[hypatia]

Genetic Savings & Clone Inc. of Sausalito, Calif. charges 50,000.00 dollars for a cloned cat. I expect dogs would be twice that much.

 

[cronxeh]

I don't see what the big deal is. So they've mastered the process of not being so sloppy - big deal woopty doo. Its still an in vitro development - not like they've actually done this in some lab environment

Matter of fact I don't consider cloning to be a threat or an achievement of humanity on any grand scale. Nature does it much better and much more efficiently, not to mention with far better precision and accuracy

Some people are concerned about the ethical implications of this research.

Im concerned of mental status of those concerned individuals

 

[hypatia]

Seems like they haven't worked out the advanced ageing problems with it yet.

 

[gerben]

I don't see what the big deal is. So they've mastered the process of not being so sloppy - big deal woopty doo. Its still an in vitro development - not like they've actually done this in some lab environment

The big deal is that it was difficult to achieve. It has been tried for quite some time and now they have succeeded. I am not sure what you meant by "in vitro and not in some lab environment". It is done partly in vitro and partly in vivo, in a lab. If someone would succeed in breeding a mammal (clone or not) without any in vivo stage, "in some lab environment", that would be a revolutionary accomplishment. Point is that most of these biological processes are far from being in our control at the moment.

Matter of fact I don't consider cloning to be a threat or an achievement of humanity on any grand scale. Nature does it much better and much more efficiently, not to mention with far better precision and accuracy

Yes, nature has many powers and does wonderful things, but we would like to harness nature's powers and be able to control those ourselves. It is no fun to sit back, look at it and say "well, it has already been done", we must to be able to do it.

 

[Phobos]

some more on the process used...(excerpt from http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/08/03/dog.clone.ap/index.html )

Like Dolly and other predecessors, Snuppy was created using a method called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT.
Scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus -- with its genetic material -- has been removed. The reconstructed egg holding the DNA from the donor cell is treated with chemicals or electric current to stimulate cell division.
Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a surrogate where it continues to develop until birth.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

these are not true clones since a) they will not have the ancestral mito dna and b) the telomeres are retarded to adult rather than embryonic status.

what i don't understand is why the following process is not done:

1) in vitro fertilize multiple embryos from the same parents
2) at blastocyst stage, remove inner cell mass
3) split the cells and grow in culture (this is the tricky part but certainly possible)
4) take one of the ICM that have grown back (undifferentiated) and reinsert into trophoblast
5) implant into pseudopregnant surrogate and enjoy the pet
6) save and freeze the other ICM cells that were cultured, repeat the process again when pet dies

notice that these would be true clones, and not suffer the two disadvantages at the start of the post.

of course, this could also be done for humans..however, less controversially, could be done in order to have a storage of ES cells for each person without the supposed 'ethical issues' of destroying an embryo - clearly if that person exists then their embryo was not destroyed!

 

[Evo]

Why clone your dog? It will not have the memories or personality of your dog.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Why clone your dog? It will not have the memories or personality of your dog.

personally, i wouldn't do it either but there are plent of people who would. as for it not having the same personality...that is debateable - i think that given the same environment it may very well have the same personality. but i think that is irrelevant to the science.

but what do you think about the above procedure? the tremendous benefit would be that ES cells would be available to a person that are genetically identical to that person, something that is not possible with the current approach.

 

[Evo]

personally, i wouldn't do it either but there are plent of people who would. as for it not having the same personality...that is debateable - i think that given the same environment it may very well have the same personality. but i think that is irrelevant to the science.

It may have the same temperament, but to me "personality" is something gained from experience, it would be how it reacted to hearing your car pull up to the house, or see you get the leash, all the little things your dog did that made him who he was will not be there.

but what do you think about the above procedure? the tremendous benefit would be that ES cells would be available to a person that are genetically identical to that person, something that is not possible with the current approach.

I don't know enough about it to know if that would work, but it sounds good!

 

[arildno]

All you'd get out of cloning your dog, is an IDENTICAL TWIN of your dog that didn't happen to be born at the same time as your old dog.
You won't get your old doggie back, though.

 

[Moonbear]

Why clone your dog? It will not have the memories or personality of your dog.

Well, it's one way of parting people who don't know much about biology from their money.

I still don't see any reason for cloning of animals beyond using it as a research tool to understand just what is under genetic control and what is influenced by epigenetic or environmental factors.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

It may have the same temperament, but to me "personality" is something gained from experience, it would be how it reacted to hearing your car pull up to the house, or see you get the leash, all the little things your dog did that made him who he was will not be there.

i'm still not so sure about this.

sociologists have done a good job of convincing us that biology has no effect on human behavior whatsoever. this is rooted in their marxist basis, since that is one of the key postulates of marx - that human (and we can generalize here to 'animal') nature is dictated entirely by the society/environment.

however, science does not support this.

studies involving twins and siblings raised in different environments show that this is not the case. anyone who has had children of their own, and watch their behavior closely, may have also noticed odd trends that could not have possibly been learned.

while it is obvious that this is not "the same dog", but a twin, i would not be surprised if the twin were to be 90% identical in behavior to the original dog.

 

[Moonbear]

studies involving twins and siblings raised in different environments show that this is not the case. anyone who has had children of their own, and watch their behavior closely, may have also noticed odd trends that could not have possibly been learned.

Some aspects of behavior may be genetic, but those twin studies still do not rule out intra-uterine developmental environment. Also, watching your own kids' behavior is not at all scientific, nor is it going to rule out anything about learning.

while it is obvious that this is not "the same dog", but a twin, i would not be surprised if the twin were to be 90% identical in behavior to the original dog.

If you're going to bring up the issue of claims that are unscientific, then you should be looking at your own 90% claim, or else provide evidence that 90% of behavior is genetically determined. While there is evidence of aspects of behavior that are learned and aspects of behavior that are biologically determined (maybe or maybe not due to genetics alone), there is nothing that quantifies the percentage of behaviors influenced by one or the other or both. These clones actually make a good research subject in which to study this because you can get genetically identical animals reared in a completely different environment, even temporally separated, including a different intrauterine environment, and start looking at how similar or dissimilar they are to one another. And of course this has usefulness beyond just behavioral studies, but to any aspect of biology in which environmental influences are suspected to play a role over genetic influences.

It would be nice if they could clone several animals from one host and implant the embryos each into a different surrogate mother rather than having them all born to a single litter to really begin to test genetic vs environmental influences on biology and behavior. A clone is the perfect control.

 

[arildno]

I would also like to add that these identical-twins-separated-at-birth studies are fraught with problems, not the least being that it is often simply shoddy science (poor controls, for example).

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

i never said that the environment (congential or otherwise) wouldn't have an influence. it's fairly obvious that it would. my point is that the modern view says that we are born as a blank slate, like a computer waiting to be programmed by society. The view that I am advocating is that this is naive.

If you're going to bring up the issue of claims that are unscientific, then you should be looking at your own 90% claim, or else provide evidence that 90% of behavior is genetically determined.

I didn't claim 90%, I said that "it wouldn't surprise me". It is an opinion that I hold based upon observation that, while not quantified, makes more sense than the alternative "blank slate" non-sense.

 

[Evo]

I guess I wasn't clear, what I mean is exactly what Arildno said "You won't get your old doggie back, though." I don't care how "similar" it looks or acts, it's not your old dog. Memories can't be cloned, at least not yet.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I guess I wasn't clear, what I mean is exactly what Arildno said "You won't get your old doggie back, though." I don't care how "similar" it looks or acts, it's not your old dog. Memories can't be cloned, at least not yet.

But it is your old dog.

if I were to somehow lose my memories, yet biologically i am still the same (except for perhaps whatever happened to my brain biologically to rid those memories), am I no longer myself? Am I not the same person?

You see the logical paradox this creates?

 

[arildno]

But it is your old dog.

No, it isn't.
Do you regard a pair of identical twins as the same individual?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

No, it isn't.
Do you regard a pair of identical twins as the same individual?

im assuming that by this you are speaking in terms of biology, and not referring to each person being "special" or having a "soul" or anything like that.

so we are then speaking of two organisms that are biologically identical, aside from any minor biological distinctiveness that may occur through interaction with the environment. e.g. one twin may develop dark spots on their skin differently from the other due to oxidation damage and so forth - this is ok, and according to my definition does not make them less identical biologically.

of course it is obvious that they will have different environmental experiences, and so they will not have the same memories or perspectives. but again, this does not detract from the fact that they are biologically identical.

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

conceptually: wipe out my memories and then send me back in time to interact with myself - and you would have twins. no less the same person!

 

[Evo]

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

And I say that despite any biological similarities, they are two separate individuals, with their own unique feelings and thoughts and identities. You obviously believe what you believe, so I won't bother arguing with you. I know differently. I've known two sets of identical twins. They're not identical and they are not the same person.

 

[russ_watters]

And I say that despite any biological similarities, they are two separate individuals, with their own unique feelings and thoughts and identities. You obviously believe what you believe, so I won't bother arguing with you. I know differently. I've known two sets of identical twins. They're not identical and they are not the same person.

Heh, if there's any doubt, just ask them.

 

[russ_watters]

im assuming that by this you are speaking in terms of biology, and not referring to each person being "special" or having a "soul" or anything like that.

so we are then speaking of two organisms that are biologically identical, aside from any minor biological distinctiveness that may occur through interaction with the environment. e.g. one twin may develop dark spots on their skin differently from the other due to oxidation damage and so forth - this is ok, and according to my definition does not make them less identical biologically.

of course it is obvious that they will have different environmental experiences, and so they will not have the same memories or perspectives. but again, this does not detract from the fact that they are biologically identical.

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

conceptually: wipe out my memories and then send me back in time to interact with myself - and you would have twins. no less the same person!

There really is something big about the biology you're missing here: the human brain doesn't stop its development at birth(or conception, for that matter), so depending on their upbringing, two twins can have very different brain structure - that's why they can end up with very different personalities.

 

[Moonbear]

im assuming that by this you are speaking in terms of biology, and not referring to each person being "special" or having a "soul" or anything like that.

so we are then speaking of two organisms that are biologically identical, aside from any minor biological distinctiveness that may occur through interaction with the environment. e.g. one twin may develop dark spots on their skin differently from the other due to oxidation damage and so forth - this is ok, and according to my definition does not make them less identical biologically.

of course it is obvious that they will have different environmental experiences, and so they will not have the same memories or perspectives. but again, this does not detract from the fact that they are biologically identical.

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

conceptually: wipe out my memories and then send me back in time to interact with myself - and you would have twins. no less the same person!

This is a very strange way of looking at things. Just because two organisms are genetically identical, they are not a single organism. Every bacterium in a colony is genetically identical, but each is an individual bacterium; every ash tree in an ash grove is genetically identical, but you wouldn't say it was just one tree; for that matter, even inanimate objects can be identical, such as the set of four chairs at the kitchen table that were mass produced to be identical, yet you still call them 4 chairs, not just one. A genetically identical dog is NOT the same dog. Actually, the best example of this is the cats that were cloned. Take a look at photos available of them; they don't even have the same coat color. This is what makes clones so interesting as a research tool, the ability to identify what traits are controlled purely by genetics and which are influenced by the developmental environment.

But, hey, researchers would love it if you'd like to try convincing our lab animal services that cloned mice are all just one individual; it sure would save on per diem charges if we just counted them all as one mouse instead of 10s or 100s of mice.

 

[arildno]

im assuming that by this you are speaking in terms of biology, and not referring to each person being "special" or having a "soul" or anything like that.

so we are then speaking of two organisms that are biologically identical, aside from any minor biological distinctiveness that may occur through interaction with the environment. e.g. one twin may develop dark spots on their skin differently from the other due to oxidation damage and so forth - this is ok, and according to my definition does not make them less identical biologically.

of course it is obvious that they will have different environmental experiences, and so they will not have the same memories or perspectives. but again, this does not detract from the fact that they are biologically identical.

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

conceptually: wipe out my memories and then send me back in time to interact with myself - and you would have twins. no less the same person!

What a load of mystical crap!

 

[Bladibla]

Why clone your dog? It will not have the memories or personality of your dog.

To eat it :)

 

[JamesU]

I will clone your dog for $1,000,000.

*calls pet store*[/size]