Reef Central Online Community
Tunze USA

Home Forum Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences View New Posts View Today's Posts

Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for marine aquarists Support our sponsors and mention Reef Central

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community > General Interest Forums > Responsible Reefkeeping
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools
Old 01/10/2018, 07:12 PM   #26
Daddi0
Registered Member
 
Daddi0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: West Coast
Posts: 292
https://global.si.edu/success-storie...re-coral-reefs


__________________
65g display w/ 30g cryptic, 30g sump & Oceanic 58, 5g Mantis
29g reef-100g turtle/cichlid tank-45g goldfish tank-55 tropical
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2666503
Daddi0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/11/2018, 12:17 PM   #27
Tripod1404
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddi0 View Post
This is more like people who have terminal diseases freezing themselves, hoping future technology would be able to cure the these and be able to end cryostasis.

Idea is to basically make a genetic information repository of corals and freeze coral tissues. Based on a pure science perspective this has very high scientific value, as it would yield large amount of information about coral genetics. But I am not that sure about the conservation standpoint.

First off, we cannot generate an organism just by using the genetic information (even if we have whole genome and mitochondrial DNA). Closes thing that has been done is removing DNA of one bacteria and adding the DNA of a closely related species. But even this can only be done in very simple members of bacteria kingdom, that are closely related to start with. We know the genomes of several extinct animals like the wooly mammoth and the Tasmanian tiger, but we cant use that to built a new mammoth from scratch. That idea is more like scifi than actual science.

Second for a moment lets assume future technology allows us to use genetic info to built corals in "vats" and revive frozen corals. Even then to have a viable population, we need to have genetic info or tissue of thousands of individuals of every coral specie. There are over 140 Acropora species and that is just one genus. If we assume there are 2000 total species, it would make 2 million individual samples. So you would need to have millions of individuals and know exactly what kind of habitat these individual require, introduce them to those places and hope they can survive and reproduce.

Lastly, when coral reefs disappear, that habitat quickly changes to another type. Some times it turns into algae fields, some reef erode into sand and the environment turns into open sand beds. So even if you have the corals, you might no longer have the habitat they used to live. This is the main argument against cloning mammoths. We have the technology and soft tissue required to clone a mammoths (same way how we clones sheep 20 years ago). But the habitat that once supported mammoths is almost completely gone (maybe except small patches of open tundra). So where would you put that animal, it is ethical to bring it back from extinction just to use have it in a zoo? And again we have soft tissue from just a couple of individuals, so they would go extinct again in couple of generations due to inbreeding.


Tripod1404 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01/12/2018, 08:47 AM   #28
McPuff
Registered Member
 
McPuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripod1404 View Post
This is more like people who have terminal diseases freezing themselves, hoping future technology would be able to cure the these and be able to end cryostasis.

Idea is to basically make a genetic information repository of corals and freeze coral tissues. Based on a pure science perspective this has very high scientific value, as it would yield large amount of information about coral genetics. But I am not that sure about the conservation standpoint.

First off, we cannot generate an organism just by using the genetic information (even if we have whole genome and mitochondrial DNA). Closes thing that has been done is removing DNA of one bacteria and adding the DNA of a closely related species. But even this can only be done in very simple members of bacteria kingdom, that are closely related to start with. We know the genomes of several extinct animals like the wooly mammoth and the Tasmanian tiger, but we cant use that to built a new mammoth from scratch. That idea is more like scifi than actual science.

Second for a moment lets assume future technology allows us to use genetic info to built corals in "vats" and revive frozen corals. Even then to have a viable population, we need to have genetic info or tissue of thousands of individuals of every coral specie. There are over 140 Acropora species and that is just one genus. If we assume there are 2000 total species, it would make 2 million individual samples. So you would need to have millions of individuals and know exactly what kind of habitat these individual require, introduce them to those places and hope they can survive and reproduce.

Lastly, when coral reefs disappear, that habitat quickly changes to another type. Some times it turns into algae fields, some reef erode into sand and the environment turns into open sand beds. So even if you have the corals, you might no longer have the habitat they used to live. This is the main argument against cloning mammoths. We have the technology and soft tissue required to clone a mammoths (same way how we clones sheep 20 years ago). But the habitat that once supported mammoths is almost completely gone (maybe except small patches of open tundra). So where would you put that animal, it is ethical to bring it back from extinction just to use have it in a zoo? And again we have soft tissue from just a couple of individuals, so they would go extinct again in couple of generations due to inbreeding.
I was optimistic about this article before reading it. But afterward, I feel the same way as you. This is essentially a seed bank, but potentially less effective. There are a lot of dependencies that would need to be satisfied for the gametes to even be effective... viability is one thing, the ability to propagate the corals is another. Still, it's a step in the right direction. There will be no magic bullet.


McPuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/06/2018, 08:18 PM   #29
shrimpinator123
Registered Member
 
shrimpinator123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 86
Ok, wanted to ask a question on here that was sort of similar to the original topic. What is with the recent uprising of the opposition to our hobby? I know there has always been opposition, and there probably always will be, but there seems to have been a surge with the recent ruling in Fiji (not sure on the status of this), and in Hawaii (any updates?) I find it funny that they seem to be worried about us, who actually provide good and the right habitat for our fish, rather than people who keep goldfish in bowls.


shrimpinator123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02/17/2018, 01:57 PM   #30
shrimpinator123
Registered Member
 
shrimpinator123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 86
Anybody got any ideas?


shrimpinator123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:02 AM.


TapaTalk Enabled

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2018 Axivo Inc.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef CentralTM Reef Central, LLC. Copyright 1999-2014