Research experience
-
Jan 1989–
Dec 2012Research: University of California, Davis
University of California, Davis · Animal Science & Population Health and ReproductionUSA · Davis -
Dec 1980–
Mar 1989Research: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · Divsion of Animal ProductionAustralia · Prospect -
Sep 1979–
Dec 1980Research: Australian National University
Australian National University · Microbiology · John Curtin School of Medical ResearchAustralia · Canberra
Questions and Answers (5) View all
-
Answer added in Genetically Modified Organisms9 Health risks of GMOBy Richard Grenier · Institute of Holistic NutritionJames Murray · University of California, DavisSeems to me that at present there is not really a question here; what percieved risks (or benefits) of what GMO?. GMO means many things, including pla... [more]Seems to me that at present there is not really a question here; what percieved risks (or benefits) of what GMO?. GMO means many things, including plants and animals with everything from marker genes, to full constructs , with and without selectable markers, to just changing one base pair of DNA to introduce a known mutation in one breed or species into another one. A very broad, and scientifically defendable view could include plants and animals produced by wide-out crosses, introduced mutations and somaclonal variation as being genetically modified by man. To talk about GMOs as if they are all the same is like saying all cars and trucks are junk, just because one particular model from one manufacturer is poorly made. Until we focus on specific GMO events and discuss the pro and cons of just that specific event, the discussion really can not move forward.Following
-
Answer added in Genetic Engineering30 Are gentically modified foods a blessing or a curse?By George Otwoma · University of EldoretJames Murray · University of California, DavisIn response to Vivekanadan's comment I would add that GE technologies are a component of animal and plant breeding and the quantitaive approach will c... [more]In response to Vivekanadan's comment I would add that GE technologies are a component of animal and plant breeding and the quantitaive approach will continue to be used for the foreseeable future. I would argue that GE should only be used to bring in new genes or variation not able to be captured by conventional breeding programs. That said there is still a definite role in many situations for GE to be safely and effectively used.Following
-
Answer added in Genetic Engineering8 Side-effects of TransgenesisBy Frederickscii Valerian · University of SydneyJames Murray · University of California, DavisWhile those things might be true they have nothing to do with animal transgenesis, except that the judicious use of GE technology might lead to reduct... [more]While those things might be true they have nothing to do with animal transgenesis, except that the judicious use of GE technology might lead to reduction in the use of such compounds.Following
-
Answer added in Genetic Engineering30 Are gentically modified foods a blessing or a curse?By George Otwoma · University of EldoretJames Murray · University of California, DavisInteresting exchange. Sorry to respond so late into it. Feeling a technique is a curse is simply avoiding the real question, which with respect to the... [more]Interesting exchange. Sorry to respond so late into it. Feeling a technique is a curse is simply avoiding the real question, which with respect to the safety of GE needs to focus on each individual application. To say all GMO are bad or evil, particularly in the broad interpretation of what a genetically modified organism is, suggests we should also ban triticale, seedless watermelon and all the other plant cultivars produced by laboratory manupilations, which makes no sense as we need to increase production. I would completely disagree about GE food not being safe to eat. No two animals that have been eaten are genetically the same, yet we would all agree that it is safe to eat beef, chicken or fish. Finally as far as a change being safe, it makes sense that a fully understood insertion of a known, characterized gene poses less risk than a cultivar produced by radiation induced mutation, which carries an unknown number of gentic changes in an unknown number of genes.Following
-
Answer added in Genetic Engineering8 Side-effects of TransgenesisBy Frederickscii Valerian · University of SydneyJames Murray · University of California, DavisI am not sure what you mean by side effects. THere have certainly been issues that came up in teh anmals, for examples the original growth hormone pig... [more]I am not sure what you mean by side effects. THere have certainly been issues that came up in teh anmals, for examples the original growth hormone pigs and sheep had serious problems due to the over-expression of GH. However, if you mean unintended consequences for the consumer, there is no evidence on htose lines being considered for use in agriculture that there is any isuue either for the animasl or for the intended consumer.Following
Publications (142) View all
-
Article: Consuming Transgenic Goats' Milk Containing the Antimicrobial Protein Lysozyme Helps Resolve Diarrhea in Young Pigs
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Childhood diarrhea is a significant problem in many developing countries and E. coli is a main causative agent of diarrhea in young children. Lysozyme is an antimicrobial protein highly expressed in human milk, but not ruminant milk, and is thought to help protect breastfeeding children against diarrheal diseases. We hypothesized that consumption of milk from transgenic goats which produce human lysozyme (hLZ-milk) in their milk would accelerate recovery from bacterial-induced diarrhea. Young pigs were used as a model for children and infected with enterotoxigenic E. coli. Once clinical signs of diarrhea developed, pigs were fed hLZ-milk or non-transgenic control goat milk three times a day for two days. Clinical observations and complete blood counts (CBC) were performed. Animals were euthanized and samples collected to assess differences in histology, cytokine expression and bacterial translocation into the mesenteric lymph node. Pigs consuming hLZ-milk recovered from clinical signs of infection faster than pigs consuming control milk, with significantly improved fecal consistency (p = 0.0190) and activity level (p = 0.0350). The CBC analysis showed circulating monocytes (p = 0.0413), neutrophils (p = 0.0219), and lymphocytes (p = 0.0222) returned faster to pre-infection proportions in hLZ-milk fed pigs, while control-fed pigs had significantly higher hematocrit (p = 0.027), indicating continuing dehydration. In the ileum, pigs fed hLZ-milk had significantly lower expression of pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-8 (p = 0.0271), longer intestinal villi (p,0.0001), deeper crypts (p = 0.0053), and a thinner lamina propria (p = 0.0004). These data demonstrate that consumption of hLZ-milk helped pigs recover from infection faster, making hLZ-milk an effective treatment of E. coli-induced diarrhea.PLoS ONE 03/2013; 8(3). · 4.09 Impact Factor -
Article: Dissecting the role of milk components on gut microbiota composition.
Elizabeth A Maga, Bart C Weimer, James D Murray[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The composition of human milk is tailored to contribute to the development of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract of newborns and infants. Importantly, human milk contains the antimicrobial compounds lysozyme and lactoferrin that are thought to contribute to the formation of a health-promoting microbiota. As these protective factors are lacking in the milk of dairy animals, we genetically engineered goats expressing human lysozyme in their milk and have recently reported a new animal model to dissect out the role of milk components on gut microbiota formation. Using the pig as a more human-relevant animal model, we demonstrated that consumption of lysozyme-rich milk enriched the abundance of bacteria associated with GI health and decreased those associated with disease, much like human milk. This work demonstrated that the pig is a valid animal model for gut microbiome studies on the effects of dietary components on microbiota composition, host-microbe interactions and state of the intestine.Gut Microbes 12/2012; 4(2). -
SourceAvailable from: Caitlin A Cooper
Article: Consumption of transgenic cows' milk containing human lactoferrin results in beneficial changes in the gastrointestinal tract and systemic health of young pigs.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Lactoferrin is an antimicrobial and immunomodulatory protein that is produced in high quantities in human milk and aids in the gastrointestinal (GI) maturation of infants. Beneficial health effects have been observed when supplementing human and animal diets with lactoferrin. A herd of genetically engineered cattle that secrete recombinant human lactoferrin in their milk (rhLF-milk) have been generated which provide an efficient production system and ideal medium for rhLF consumption. The effects of consumption of rhLF-milk were tested on young pigs as an animal model for the GI tract of children. When comparing rhLF-milk fed pigs to non-transgenic milk fed pigs (control), we observed that rhLF-milk fed pigs had beneficial changes in circulating leukocyte populations. There was a significant decrease in neutrophils (p = 0.0036) and increase in lymphocytes (p = 0.0017), leading to a decreased neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (p = 0.0153), which is an indicator of decreased systemic inflammation. We also observed changes in intestinal villi architecture. In the duodenum, rhLF-milk fed pigs tended to have taller villi (p = 0.0914) with significantly deeper crypts (p < 0.0001). In the ileum, pigs consuming rhLF-milk had villi that were significantly taller (p = 0.0002), with deeper crypts (p < 0.0001), and a thinner lamina propria (p = 0.0056). We observed no differences in cytokine expression between rhLF-milk and control-milk fed pigs, indicating that consumption of rhLF-milk did not change cytokine signaling in the intestines. Overall favorable changes in systemic health and GI villi architecture were observed; indicating that consumption of rhLF-milk has the potential to induce positive changes in the GI tract.Transgenic Research 10/2012; · 2.75 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Elizabeth A Maga
Article: Consumption of lysozyme-rich milk can alter microbial fecal populations.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Human milk contains antimicrobial factors such as lysozyme and lactoferrin that are thought to contribute to the development of an intestinal microbiota beneficial to host health. However, these factors are lacking in the milk of dairy animals. Here we report the establishment of an animal model to allow the dissection of the role of milk components in gut microbiota modulation and subsequent changes in overall and intestinal health. Using milk from transgenic goats expressing human lysozyme at 68%, the level found in human milk and young pigs as feeding subjects, the fecal microbiota was analyzed over time using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and the G2 Phylochip. The two methods yielded similar results, with the G2 Phylochip giving more comprehensive information by detecting more OTUs. Total community populations remained similar within the feeding groups, and community member diversity was changed significantly upon consumption of lysozyme milk. Levels of Firmicutes (Clostridia) declined whereas those of Bacteroidetes increased over time in response to the consumption of lysozyme-rich milk. The proportions of these major phyla were significantly different (P < 0.05) from the proportions seen with control-fed animals after 14 days of feeding. Within phyla, the abundance of bacteria associated with gut health (Bifidobacteriaceae and Lactobacillaceae) increased and the abundance of those associated with disease (Mycobacteriaceae, Streptococcaceae, Campylobacterales) decreased with consumption of lysozyme milk. This study demonstrated that a single component of the diet with bioactivity changed the gut microbiome composition. Additionally, this model enabled the direct examination of the impact of lysozyme on beneficial microbe enrichment versus detrimental microbe reduction in the gut microbiome community.Applied and environmental microbiology 06/2012; 78(17):6153-60. · 3.69 Impact Factor -
Article: Gene silencing in bovine zygotes: siRNA transfection versus microinjection.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare gene silencing in bovine zygotes when small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) were introduced into bovine zygotes by microinjection or lipid-based transfection. In Experiment 1, E-cadherin siRNA was injected at 100 or 375 µM and compared with PBS-injected and non-injected controls. Embryos were then cultured in vitro for 7 days and periodically assessed for development. For transfection, zona-free zygotes were incubated in transfection medium with siRNA for 1h at 39°C and then cultured to Day 7. Injection of PBS or 375 µM E-cadherin siRNA resulted in a decrease in the number of embryos reaching the 8-cell stage (51.5% and 45.5%) or the blastocyst stage (39.0 and 32.5%) compared with non-injected controls (62.9 and 45.0%, respectively; P<0.05). Messenger RNA abundance was suppressed by 36 and 46% when siRNA targeting E-cadherin was injected at 100 and 375 µM, respectively, compared with controls (P<0.05). Transfection with 100 nM E-cadherin siRNA decreased development to the 8-cell stage (20.3 versus 53.0%) and blastocyst stage (7.2 versus 18.2%) compared with controls (P<0.05). Messenger RNA relative abundance was not different between controls (non-transfected or transfected with GAPDH or scrambled siRNA). However, transfection of zygotes with 100 and 200 nM E-cadherin siRNA led to a 72 and 38% reduction, respectively, in E-cadherin mRNA relative abundance in Day 7 blastocysts compared with controls (P<0.05).Reproduction Fertility and Development 05/2011; 23(4):534-43. · 2.11 Impact Factor