skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Genetic engineering and more fluorescence...
Asaad asks a really good question about the safety of sticking random genes into people. To be honest, I can’t give you a definite answer about whether sticking GFP into a human would be harmful or not because, as far as I know, it has never been tried. One major ethical concern about genetic engineering in humans is that we can’t be 100% certain what sticking a gene into a person would do until we actually do the experiment. This is less of a problem for conventional pharmaceuticals, because you can recruit volunteers who are informed about the risks. But a person who isn’t even born yet obviously isn’t around to make that sort of decision! A person who has been genetically engineered would be stuck with that for the rest of his or her life. And you are right that the children of that person could inherit the gene. (They would probably have a 50% chance of inheriting it if it was carried on one of the parent’s chromosomes.) Whether or not it would ever be justified to make that sort of decision for someone is a very serious ethical question! All that said, though, my guess is that GFP would probably be safe to have floating around inside your cells. As far as we can tell, it doesn’t seem to do much of anything (aside from glowing) when you stick it into the cells of other organisms. So there isn’t any reason to think that it would be harmful…though it probably isn’t work risking it just for fun! As for how fluorescence works…that’s a really cool story. You may have talked a bit about atoms in one of your science classes. If you remember, atoms are made of nuclei (made of positively-charged protons and uncharged neutrons) orbited by negatively-charged electrons. The electrons are in things called orbitals. You can think of an orbital as like a “cloud” of electrons with a particular shape. (If you study quantum mechanics someday, you’ll learn that electrons in orbitals can be thought of as waves too…that’s a weird thing to think about!).
Well anyway, atoms can combine in different ways to form molecules. When this happens, the electron orbitals from all the individual atoms fuse into new orbitals called molecular orbitals. When the molecule is just hanging out (i.e. when the light is off), those electrons are generally in the lowest-energy orbitals possible. However, when a particle of light (a photon) with the right energy interacts with the electrons, they can absorb the energy in the photon and jump up to a higher-energy orbital. The molecule is in what is called an excited state. However, this excited state is unstable. Think of it as sort of like a pencil balanced on its tip. Maybe the molecule can exist in that state for a split second, but it wants to get back to its ground state. In some molecules, the electron just falls back to its low-energy state and the energy from the light is lost as heat. But in some special molecules (like the molecules of the fluorescein that I brought you), something really cool happens where the molecule emits a new particle of light when the electron falls from its excited state back down to its low-energy state. This is the light that you observe as fluorescence. The new photon of light is a different color than the original photon of light because some of the energy is typically lost in the process of kicking the electron up to a high-energy state and letting it fall back down again. I hope that wasn’t too unclear! Let me know if you have any more questions!
Note: 1 nanosecond = 1/1,000,000,000 second
1 picosecond = 1/1,000,000,000,000 second
1 femtosecond = 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 second!!!!!!
What's really crazy is that people have figured out ways to observe things this fast! One of the people who figured out how to do this won the Nobel Prize. See: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1999/illpres/
2 comments:
Hi Thomas,
Sean had a similar question to Asaad's which was, "What would happen if we inserted a piece of DNA into a human gene?" Your explanation to Asaad answers that pretty well. I guess it's more about "should we?" than it is about whether or not we could.
Still, the idea of having a luminescent nose or eyes for Halloween does sound interesting.
The fluorescein you gave us last month is in our glass cabinet and exposed to some light. If we were to put it under a lamp or in direct sunlight then bring it back into muted light or darkness, would it glow brighter as those excited electrons came to a resting state again? Also, does the fluorescein lose it ability to glow after time like the glow stick from a toy store? My last question on this subject is, "Would you be willing to give us the recipe for making fluorescein?" I know the kids would love to make it. I have the materials you left, and science catalogs to order new materials from.
Thanks for all the great science, Thomas!
Sincerely,
Ms. MacWilliams
Hi Ms. MacWilliams!
Let me see if I can answer your questions...
First, I don't think you would be able to see anything if you put the fluorescein under high light and then removed it to low light. That is, unless you did this in a few nanoseconds! The problem has to do with a parameter called fluorescence lifetime. The fluorescence lifetime is how long the excited electron in a fluorescent molecule remains excited before it returns or relaxes back to the ground state. (The fluorescence lifetime is analogous to the half-life of a radioactive isotope.) For fluorescein, this lifetime is only about 4 nanoseconds (see http://www.iss.com/resources/lifetime.html). While it is impossible to see events this fast with the naked eye, there are machines called lifetime fluorometers that can measure fluorescence lifetimes precisely. These measurements are useful, because fluorescence lifetime is affected by the molecular environment near the fluorophore (note: fluorophore = fluorescent molecule or fluorescent part of a molecule). So changes in the fluorescence lifetime can report on changes in a fluorescent molecule’s environment.
In response to your second question, yes, the fluorescein does lose its ability to glow over time, but not for the same reason as a glow stick. A glow stick relies on a phenomenon called chemiluminescence where chemical energy is converted into light energy. It stops glowing when the reactant molecules have all been converted into products. In contrast, fluorescein molecules do not glow spontaneously but rather require an external light source to “glow.” A fluorescent molecule basically takes higher-energy light and converts it into lower-energy light. Fluorescein takes blue light (higher energy per photon) and converts it into green light (lower energy per photon). Rather than being a light producer, a fluorescent molecule is more like a “light converter.” As I mentioned in my presentation, fluorescent molecules can lose their fluorescence in a process called photobleaching. Photobleaching occurs because a high-energy excited-state fluorophore is extremely reactive. It can react with other molecules (especially oxygen) in the solution and turn into something else that does not fluoresce. Fortunately, this doesn’t happen too quickly for most fluorophores, because (as I mentioned above) the excited state is very short-lived.
Finally…the recipe…This is the section from my freshman organic chemistry class lab report where I described how to make fluorescein:
“Fluorescein
7.40 g of phthalic anhydride (0.050 mol), 11.00 g of resorcinol (0.100 mol), and 1.80 g of ZnCl2 (0.0014 mol) were mixed and heated to 200°C, with stirring. After 30 minutes, the viscous deep red mixture was removed from the heat and cooled in the reaction flask to room temperature. The workup was performed as recommended by Norris (1915). 100 mL of water and 20 mL of concentrated HCl were added to the flask containing the crude. The mixture was heated, and solid product was dislodged from the walls of the vessel by vigorous agitation to form a thick red slurry. The product was vacuum filtered, rinsed with water, and allowed to dry. The product was ground using a mortar and pestle, to yield a deep red powder. The product was again heated with 100 mL of water and 20 mL of concentrated HCl, vacuum filtered, rinsed with water, and dried. This gave 16.13 g of a deep red powder (97.2% yield). MP >250°C, lit. 290°C.”
Here is the URL of an online version of an old organic chemistry lab manual by James F. Norris (1915) that describes making fluorescein. See section 225:
http://www.books-about-california.com/Pages/Experimental_Organic_Chemistry/Ex_Organic_Chem_Chap_24.html
First of all…
WARNING: DO THE REACTION ON A SMALL SCALE IN A WELL-VENTILATED AREA AND BE SURE TO WEAR SAFETY GOOGLES! Phthalic anhydride in particular is corrosive and can be toxic by inhalation. For the sake of safety, you should use a much smaller amount of material than I used above—just scale everything down (proportionally, if possible) and do the reaction in a small test tube. Even a small amount of fluorescein in water can produce a lot of fluorescence. You would probably be fine just using a small pinch (< 1 gram) of each of the reactants. I did the reaction in a fume hood, but since you don’t have one of those, it should be okay to do it on a small scale by an open window. Material data safety sheets (MSDS) for the reactants can be found here:
http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/PH/phthalic_anhydride.html
http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/RE/resorcinol.html
http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/ZI/zinc_chloride.html
Basically, you just need to take 1 molar equivalent of phthalic anhydride, two molar equivalents of resorcinol, and a small quantity of the zinc chloride catalyst and heat them for several minutes. An alcohol burner should be fine. I would recommend using a glass test tube that you don’t mind destroying. (You might need to smash it to get the product out.) The components should melt together when you heat them. The red product of the reaction is fluorescein. To get rid of excess phthalic anhydride and resorcinol, you can wash the product with acid, then water. Vinegar followed by distilled water would probably work just fine. You can then dissolve the fluorescein in a basic solution. Probably a baking soda solution would work okay. If you have any more questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.
Thomas
Post a Comment