Bioengineered Bugs
ISSN: 1949-1018 (Print) 1949-1026 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/kbie19
Time it was, and what a time it was... Roy D. Sleator To cite this article: Roy D. Sleator (2011) Time it was, and what a time it was..., Bioengineered Bugs, 2:1, 1-2, DOI: 10.4161/bbug.2.1.14315 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/bbug.2.1.14315
Copyright © 2011 Landes Bioscience
Published online: 01 Jan 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 13
View related articles
Citing articles: 6 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=kbie19 Download by: [122.96.59.104]
Date: 28 January 2016, At: 03:24
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Bioengineered Bugs 2:1, 1-2; January/February 2011; © 2011 Landes Bioscience
Time it was, and what a time it was… Roy D. Sleator
Downloaded by [122.96.59.104] at 03:24 28 January 2016
Department of Biological Sciences; Cork Institute of Technology; Cork, Ireland
So much has happened since our January 2010 launch that it’s difficult to know even where to begin. While the world of commerce witnessed a catastrophic return to the dark days, the scientific world beheld some of the brightest and most dramatic advances of our time and Bioengineered Bugs was there to chronicle them all. Fittingly, our maiden issue opened with a commentary by Prof. Ananda Chakrabarty (one of our esteemed Associate Editors) on “contentious issues in patenting.”1 This was to be an extremely timely piece given the subsequent controversies in gene patenting which dominated the headlines in the latter half of 2010 (Fig. 1). A complaint filed against Myriad Genetics in 2009 (focusing on the companies BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer gene patents) by the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization representing selected professional medical organizations and patient groups, led to a storm of controversy in 2010.2 The claim, which sought to invalidate all patents on genetic loci, issued on the grounds that such genes are “isolated and purified” to a non-naturally-occurring state, had the potential to seriously damage the biotechnology sector. In an unexpected ruling which sent shock waves through the industry; the case was accepted by the US District Court in March of last year. While Myriad appealed the ruling, the US Department of Justice followed with an amicus brief, seeking to distinguish between DNA which has been isolated and altered (and as such is patentable) and native DNA, which has not been genetically modified and as such constitutes an unpatentable product of nature. Given the legal complexities and the extremely high stakes involved, this story is far from over.
Figure 1. Genetic engineering making the headlines in 2010.
Another story which captured the headlines (Fig. 1) and the imaginations of the©2 masses in 2010, was the birth 01 1L and esBi os c i enc e. of Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. In Donotdi s t r i but e. the July issue of Science, J. Craig Venter (Associate Editor, Bioengineered Bugs) reported the creation of the first synthetic bacterial cell.3 Lauded in the popular press as “creating artificial life in the laboratory”, this paper marked the pinnacle of a series of ground breaking advances in genomics research. From the publication of the first free living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium in 1995,4 to the first chromosomal transplantation in 2007,5 and ultimately to the complete chemical synthesis and assembly of a bacterial genome in 2010,3 — the dawn of synthetic biology is upon us. Thanks to Venter and colleagues, it is now possible for a digitized DNA sequence, stored in a computer file, to be converted into a living entity which is capable of growth and self-replication. In Craig’s own words “JCVI-syn1.0 is the first free living biological entity whose parent is a computer”. Indeed, the successful creation of JCVI-syn1.0 has set the scene for the next generation of synthetic cells (syn2.0, 3.0 and onwards) specifically tailored for
specialized tasks from bioremediation to biodefense. And so, in a year marked by controversy and celebration, Bioengineered Bugs emerged and flourished. Our online submissions continue to grow on a daily basis, with review articles, original reports, views and commentaries, on all aspects of genetic engineering, adding to the richness and diversity of the journal. Article downloads are increasing month to month and citations to Bioengineered Bugs articles are beginning to appear with increasing frequency in the scientific literature. Our editorial board too is expanding and now numbers 53 members from 24 countries—thus adding to the journal’s truly international complexion. In order to enable continued growth and to ensure maximum exposure of our articles, Bioengineered Bugs has been submitted for inclusion in PubMed/ MEDLINE, a process which has been facilitated by the high caliber of articles, a fast and efficient manuscript turnaround time (authors can expect an initial decision within two weeks of submission) and the continued support and enthusiasm of our expert editorial board and journal
Correspondence to: Roy D. Sleator; Email:
[email protected] Submitted: 11/30/10; Accepted: 11/30/10 DOI: 10.4161/bbug.2.1.14315 www.landesbioscience.com
Bioengineered Bugs
1
Downloaded by [122.96.59.104] at 03:24 28 January 2016
staff; particularly our Acquisitions Editor, Eva Riedmann; Managing Editor, Scott Butler; Senior Managing Editor, Kristine Pipit and Journal Publications Director, Kimberly Mitchell. A sincere thank you must also go to those who contributed to the journal—whether submitting or downloading an article, you have all added to our success. However, as with any journal, Bioengineered Bugs is only as strong as its last issue, it is thus essential that the journal continues to grow and expand—once indexed, we must next focus on obtaining
a high impact factor; a feat which will require not only a continued supply of excellent papers, but also a growing audience. Therefore, I ask all our readers to not only submit your work to the journal, but to ensure increased circulation and exposure you must encourage your institute to subscribe to Bioengineered Bugs. In January 2010 I declared that Bioengineered Bugs had begun,6 today it is, but tomorrow it must continue to be… Roy D. Sleator Editor-in-Chief
References 1.
Chakrabarty AM. Bioengineered bugs, drugs and contentious issues in patenting. Bioengineered Bugs 2010; 1:2-8. 2. Cho M. Patently unpatentable: implications of the Myriad court decision on genetic diagnostics. Trends Biotechnol 2010; 28:548-51. 3. Gibson DG, Glass JI, Lartigue C, Noskov VN, Chuang RY, Algire MA, et al. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 2010; 329:52-6. 4. Fraser CM, Gocayne JD, White O, Adams MD, Clayton RA, Fleischmann RD, et al. The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium. Science 1995; 270:397-403. 5. Lartigue C, Glass JI, Alperovich N, Pieper R, Parmar PP, Hutchison CA, 3rd, et al. Genome transplantation in bacteria: changing one species to another. Science 2007; 317:632-8. 6. Sleator RD. Bioengineered Bugs Begins… Bioengineered Bugs 2010; 1:1.
©201 1L andesBi os c i enc e. Donotdi s t r i but e.
2
Bioengineered Bugs
Volume 2 Issue 1
