Glofish

[bugmankeith]

I read that Glofish now pass the glow gene onto their offspring, so they are breedable. Has anyone bred them, they are no different than regular Danios which breed easily in aquariums. If you mixed different colored fish would the result be mixed colors or muted colors?

 

[buddah4207]

I have heard of this once but all of the offspring came out deformed. So I'm not sure its even worth trying to breed them.

 

[bugmankeith]

I have heard of this once but all of the offspring came out deformed. So I'm not sure its even worth trying to breed them.

My question is if they come out deformed how do ones we buy get bred?

 

[buddah4207]

From what I have found the makers of Glofish have no real desire for us to be able to breed our own, that being said I don't think it's impossible but I think they take measure to make them infertile.

 

[cantthinkofone]

I think glofish are the sickest things ever. They were bred for color. They are monsters! The creators are sick. If they dont like fish the way they are why mutilate them for color and luminescence?!?

 

[bugmankeith]

I think glofish are the sickest things ever. They were bred for color. They are monsters! The creators are sick. If they dont like fish the way they are why mutilate them for color and luminescence?!?

I just found out their original purpose was to show water quality. Poor water quality there colors are bright, good water quality the colors get dull. As you can imagine, people keeping them as pets try on purpose to keep their water bad as it makes them brighter, another unfortunate scheme in the pet trade like those killer Betta bowls...

 

[cantthinkofone]

That's my point these are poor fish that were brought into this world not by god but by monsters. These things suffer so that little Johnny has a cool colored pet. Sick.

 

[BioTeach]

Glofish don't suffer...they haven't been injected with latex or dye. Their body produces the protein that results in their color. It is in their DNA. It is similar to selective breeding that humans have done for millennia, only more focused and precise. The same technology used to "create" glofish is being used to understand and treat genetic disorders and disease. That same technology can also help save plants and animals. All domesticated plants and animals have been altered by humans, which is also not "natural". I'd say they have proven to be pretty beneficial overall.

 

[cantthinkofone]

They are mutts. A mix of genetics. I'm not stupid I know how they are made. They are sick.

 

[BioTeach]

We are all a mix of genetics. I would actually consider them the opposite of mutts due to the fact they are from limited breeding stock and that can cause "sick" fish. It is a lot cheaper to breed existing glofish than to genetically engineer new ones.

 

[cantthinkofone]

Find a place where these exist in nature and I'll drop my case

 

[BioTeach]

I'm not sure that you have a case. By your own logic, the majority of plants and animals we use every day are "sick" and were created by "monsters". Selective breeding of plants and animals is not "natural" and humans have done it since our early beginnings to serve our needs. Transgenic species were created by humans for humans in that same vein using modern technology. I hope you don't turn down gene therapy or a genetically engineered vaccine that could save your life some day because it is not found in nature.

 

[cantthinkofone]

Selective breeding and gene crossing are SO different. If people start genetically changing themselves will you follow?

 

[BioTeach]

If it was gene therapy to treat or cure a disease such as cystic fibrosis, diabetes, cancer, or any one of the myriad of debilitating genetic disorders then...yes. As with any technology, it is the way you use it. You are letting your personal bias dictate the value of this technology without considering its possible uses.

 

[Najakeeper]

Selective breeding and genetic modification are not that different at all. The main difference is the time required to get the desired results.

 

[bugmankeith]

I wonder if glowing hurts their eyes or annoys them? If you had a body that lights up, even when its dark, how would you rest properly? In the wild the water gets dark at night so normally they would have some hours of no light.

 

[friendttyy]

I have been in the fish hobby at one stage cross breeding between species to get another type of fish is scary.The parrot fish is one of them.

 

[Plissken]

If it was gene therapy to treat or cure a disease such as cystic fibrosis, diabetes, cancer, or any one of the myriad of debilitating genetic disorders then...yes. As with any technology, it is the way you use it. You are letting your personal bias dictate the value of this technology without considering its possible uses.

. You are comparing apples to oranges. Genetically modifying microorganism to promote health is WAY different that genetically modifying an animal to make it seem more "appealing" when the ethicality of the animal is not taken into consideration. It's not personal bias, it's common sense bro...

 

[BioTeach]

The current use of inserting a gene that causes an organism to produce a fluorescent protein (they don't actually glow) is not harmful to the organism. There is much more precision in genetic engineering and unlike selective breeding or hybridization, less chance of unwanted genetic side affects (unwanted traits). As mentioned earlier, glofish were not originally created for the aquarium trade, but for environmental purposes. They were introduced to the pet trade later as interest was noted and it was realized funds could be generated for further research. There is no more of an ethical issue than any other fish in the trade. Common sense often leads to common misconceptions.

 

[Aviara]

It seems like there are a lot of unanswered questions floating around in this thread, and a lot of confusion. Others before me have done a good job addressing how glofish are produced. However, to address the original poster's questions: first of all glofish would pass on their bio-luminescence as this is a genetic trait and not a product of dye injection. However, in part due to copyright issue and in part because of concerns that these transgenic organisms may be released into the wild by irresponsible owners, the company that produces glofish has a procedure for sterilizing them chemically. I do not know the details, but I know that while a few are still capable of breeding, most are effectively sterilized and therefore breeding these would be nearly impossible.

In response to the color changing due to water quality - glofish were originally bred with the idea that further strains would be created that could detect, by glowing, the presence of specific water chemicals. The scientists found it very easy to create a glowing fish, but could not figure out how to redesign the genes so that the fish only glowed in the presence of a certain chemical, and not continuously. The project was halted, but the resulting fish were marketed to the pet industry and were a hit. Contrary to what was stated earlier, these fish do not produce a stronger glow in dirty water, and although abusively small tanks are usually marketed as "glofish aquariums", there is no incentive to keep their water less clean than that of another fish species.

Ironically, most of us consume transgenic foods (GMO crops) regularly, but when something more obvious like these glofish turn up, many raise ethical concerns without understanding how these fish came to be, and how safe they really are. Because a glowing fish is unnatural, people have a fear reaction and tend to condemn them as unsafe or unethical before researching. Yet as long as they are kept in a healthy environment that meets their needs, just like any other aquarium fish, they are no stranger, no less safe, and no less ethical than any selectively bred aquarium fish (ex. Betta splendens, domesticated goldfish and koi varieties, etc.).