Virus DNA hidden in GMO crops

[farminator3000]

121. i am completely right and you look more foolish with each post!

Nobody is genetically modifying the virus, they are using genes from the virus to modify the crops.

this shows that you either don't now how the process works or are deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes for infernal purposes.

please explain how THIS, which is used to get the type VI, is not GE:
The gene can be isolated using restriction enzymes to cut DNA into fragments and gel electrophoresis to separate them out according to length.[48] Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can also be used to amplify up a gene segment, which can then be isolated through gel electrophoresis.[49] If the chosen gene or the donor organism's genome has been well studied it may be present in a genetic library. If the DNA sequence is known, but no copies of the gene are available, it can be artificially synthesized.[50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Process

CaMV Type VI is a PROMOTER (just a RANDOM PART of the NATURAL CaMV virus) which is combined with YET ANOTHER organism and INJECTED INTO THE NUCLEI OF PLANT'S CELLS.

to say that this does not happen in nature is more than a bit of an understatement.

also please check the section in bold at the end of this post!

a short course-

CaMV is a promoter-
What is a 'promoter'?

A 'promoter' is a stretch of genetic material that acts as a switch for turning genes on. Every gene needs its own promoter. But the promoter is not a simple switch like that for an electric light, which has only two positions, either fully on or fully off. Instead, the gene promoter has many different parts or modules that act as sensors, to enable it to respond, in ways we do not yet fully understand, to signals from other genes and from the environment. These signals tell it when and where to switch on, by how much and for how long. And under certain circumstances, the promoter may be silenced, so that it is off all the time.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/story.htm

for things such as-
Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops
www.pnas.org/content/103/35/13010.full
by T Funke - 2006 - Cited by 64 - Related articles
Aug 29, 2006 – Roundup Ready plants carry the gene coding for a glyphosate-insensitive form of this enzyme, obtained from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4.

AND
Bt-Corn: What It Is and How It Works | University of Kentucky ...
www.ca.uky.edu/entomology/entfacts/ef130.asp
Jan 22, 2013 – In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, and the gene of interest produces a ...

AND
LibertyLink (gene)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

LibertyLink is a Bayer owned brand of genes for use in agriculture providing tolerance to ignite herbicide and glufosinate (a.k.a. Liberty or Basta). The genes were developed by Bayer CropScience. LibertyLink is the only herbicide tolerant gene other than Roundup Ready on the market. Also, LibertyLink provides an herbicide resistance system that is still effective in the presence of glyphosate resistant weeds.[1] The gene which gives resistance to glufosinate is a bar or pat gene which was first isolated from two species of Streptomyces bacteria. Glufosinate was included in a biocide ban proposed by the Swedish Chemicals Agency [2] and approved by the European Parliament on January 13, 2009.[3]

Streptomyces
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Streptomyces is the largest genus of Actinobacteria and the type genus of the family Streptomycetaceae.[1] Over 500 species of Streptomyces bacteria have been described.[2] As with the other Actinobacteria, streptomycetes are Gram-positive, and have genomes with high GC content.[3] Found predominantly in soil and decaying vegetation, most streptomycetes produce spores, and are noted for their distinct "earthy" odor that results from production of a volatile metabolite, geosmin.


***

Abstract
To search for strong promoters that confer constitutive expression of transgenes, we evaluated the
prornoters of an Arabidopsis tryptophan synthase protein ~ subunit gene (PTSB1) and a phytochrome B
gene (PPHYB) as alternatives to the 35S RNA promoter (P35S) of Caullflower mosaic virus.
Characteristics of the Soybean chrolotic mottle virus promoter (PNCR) were also studied for
comparison.
http://www.kazusa.or.jp/ja/plant/jspcmb/PlantBiotech/PBpdf/PB19-1_PDF/PB19A019.PDF


The regulatory elements of CaMV have been used since the
1980s to express novel genes in plants;2 specifically, the 35S promoter
(P35S) and terminator are widely used in research and
plant biotechnology.3,4 The P35S is a strong constitutive promoter,
generating high levels of gene expression in dicotyledonous
plants. Of the 86 single transgenic plant events that have
been authorised in the United States, 54 contain one or more
copies of the CaMV P35S.5
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/2012GMC0020R.pdf


Abstract:
Multiple variants of the Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter (P35S) are used to drive the expression of transgenes in genetically modified plants, for both research purposes and commercial applications. The genetic organization of the densely packed genome of this virus results in sequence overlap between P35S and viral gene VI, encoding the multifunctional P6 protein. The present paper investigates whether introduction of P35S variants by genetic transformation is likely to result in the expression of functional domains of the P6 protein and in potential impacts in transgenic plants.
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/21406/?show_full_text=true

***

The CaMV promoter - a recipe for disaster?

THIS was the title of a scientific paper co-authored by myself and my colleagues, Angela Ryan from the Open University UK and Prof. Joe Cummins from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, and submitted to the journal Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease last October. The journal-s Editor, Prof. Tore Midtvedt, a distinguished medical microbial ecologist working in the Karolinska Institute of Sweden, promptly posted our paper on the journal's website before publication and put out a press release. Within two days, someone managed to solicit at least nine critiques, including one from Monsanto, which were posted on a website funded by the biotech industry and widely circulated on the Internet. The critiques varied in tone from the moderately polite to the ill-mannered.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/story.htm