Talk:GloFish

Untitled

Yorktown Technologies calls their product GloFish (TM). Should we change the article capitalization? RickK 00:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Centre for Food Safety And Nutrition is a subsiduary of the US FDA, and should not be confused with the CFS mentioned above, an environmental group similar in some ways to Greenpeace.

Isn't this a useful clarification? Also, suggestions for rewording, please; I acknowledge it could be seen as POV.

Mr. Jones 14:46, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include a photograph? Sennheiser 13:15, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Aren't these zebrafish merely expressing BioGlo (p-GLO)? Can someone find a source on this? 139.84.48.249 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

California

The article says that "the State of California Department of Fish and Game" found the fish safe (implying legality), but later in the article it is stated that the fish is still illegal in California. If it's illegal, someone needs to add why. OzLawyer 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I have added a discussion of this aspect. -- Stewart

propose merge to Zebrafish

I propose this article be merged with Zebrafish. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

DON'T MERGE Too much unique information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tactik (talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Tactik, I'm not sure there is too much unique information. The articles is on the same species as Zebrafish - I'm not sure why we have two articles on the same fish? MidgleyDJ 09:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

15 years later, the Glofish brand has expanded to more species. Merging with zebrafish would not be appropriate. However, parts of the article could do well if merged with the Genetrically modified fish article, as much/most the information presented isn't brand-specific. Kameloso (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't merge In constrast to leopard danio, the first gmo to be marketed as a pet is well worth its own page. It is of much broader significance, eg to anyone interested in the public's acceptance of biotech (who might not be interested in zebrafish per se). Also, all this would overwhelm the rather short article we've got on zebrafish. A short section summarising this on the zebrafish page might be a nice addition, though. –Adrian J. Hunter 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge Merging the articles would be a bad idea. As the first biotech animal, this fish is extremely significant in its own right. Combining this with the zebrafish page would discount that fact and be like placing Dolly, the first cloned sheep, under the Sheep page. It would also be a great disservice to those seeking information on this specific fish vs. zebrafish in general. Last, this article dates back to November of 2003 and has hundreds of edits - there does not seem to be any reason to merge the two articles now, and extremely good reasons not to do so.

Taxonomic description?

Should the Glo Fish have a taxonomic description? They are technically zebrafish, but they are not the same as natural zebrafish. Could they be classified as a subspecies? --TangoFett (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, they really are not a subspecies at all. Does the taxobox include a category that can be used for human-made genetic variants? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Bioluminecence is not fluorecence

Bioluminescence is not fluorescence. The fish are described as both in the article. I think they are only fluorescent, but this should be checked. Anyone know?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.146.211 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 February 2011

You are exactly right. Thanks for that good catch! I fixed it. (Did I miss the word anywhere else?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Violence of genetically modified glofish

It is said that these fish are not violent, but that is not true. We got one of these fish, and it was in a tank with a similar sized lemon cobra guppy, and in just about 36 hours this genetically modified glofish tore the cobra guppy to pieces (we are away much of the time and thus did not monitor it right). So, the non-violence claims are not true, and like other GM fish (e.g., salmon), for some reason GM bring aggression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.122.225 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We would need a reference for that, per WP:NOR. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not violent"? They're zebra danios. Just because they're neon-colored zebra danios doesn't mean they're going to have any different personality from any other zebra danios ... and that can include nipping. Besides, guppy tails are irresistible to any fish with a predilection for fin nipping. It has nothing to do with the GloFish's jellyfish genes and everything to do with the fact that some zebra danios (rather a lot, in my experience) are downright mean.

Also, you got ONE of these fish. They're a schooling fish, so they (and guppies, for that matter) should be stocked in groups. Three would be a bare minimum, and more would be better. Schooling fish will generally be better behaved (with regard to being both bully and bullied) when they are in schools.

Just like to point out that GloFish are STILL zebra danios and while, as a species, they are considered community tank safe, there are some individual fish who are just naturally more aggressive. They are known fin nippers and chasers (just google "zebra danio fin nipping") which is why many local fish stores place them in the semi-agressive catergory. I personally used to breed tanks full of zebras (along with leopards, guppies, platies and other popular easy breeds) years ago for my LFS and bullies would pop up. Usually these were culled by me but sometimes one would slip through. I have also had a few GloFish and can't see any difference in personality from my own observation. They're just bright danios. 174.49.19.28 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Illegal to breed?

I am puzzled. How can the company have a right on the fish's offspring? And even trading and sharing is forbidden, the company says? Are those patent laws specific to the USA? Because I never heard of such far-reaching patent laws. Correjon (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to do with patent laws, just the terms you must agree to when buying the fish. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that, strictly speaking, there cannot be a legal prohibition against the fish spawning in someone's hobby tank. Instead, there is (at least in the US) a patent that prevents commercial sale of the offspring without a license from the patent holder. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

i think that the glow fish should have more Information when i say information i mean it should give more details more facts this has no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! facts at all about the GloFish there important to just like any other fish dont you think. -sincerely,Laur H — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.74.197.3 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see information about this added to the article. Howunusual (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on GloFish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305141709/http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm161437.htm to http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm161437.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217173629/http://www.gpasi.org/Apr04.pdf to http://www.gpasi.org/Apr04.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070309084310/http://www.vrom.nl:80/pagina.html?id=25069 to http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=25069
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208192521/http://diplo.uol.com.br:80/2004-01,a828 to http://diplo.uol.com.br/2004-01,a828

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Time line

This article state developments that happened "recently" but doesn't give a time reference to tell when it was recent to. It might have been written 2 years ago or 2 days ago. Could some one change "recently" to an actual date or time period?2601:5CB:4000:BC65:7C73:8D9A:E245:BDFD (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Michael Hicks 7/12/19

Public perception of pet GMO fish

There seems to be a lack of information regarding the public's perception of GMO animals, particularly to GLOFish. Is there any research out there? There was one source that scratched at the surface, bringing to mention how selling GloFish could somehow create a more accepting environment for biotechnologies in agriculture. Can this be elaborated on? PinguiculaRK (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)PinguiculaRK

GloFish advertising is very misleading. It claims, GloFish are Born the way they are, and are not dyed, painted, or treated with any chemicals. Implying that they naturally Glow. It doesn't however mention that they are genetically modified. --2605:A000:1E02:C30A:4CCA:E3A0:6B9E:55BB (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Which fluorophores are actually used in GloFish? (removed section)

I just clipped out the article section "Sources of colors" because it didn't actually identify the sources of colors - the specific fluorescent proteins - used in GloFish. (The article just had a laundry list of a bunch of fluorescent proteins that are used in research, and a link back to our article on reporter genes which was of dubious relevance.)

As near as I can tell, GloFish use (or used) either dsRed or various mutants of GFP, depending on color. The gene expression is under the control of a skeletal muscle promoter, mylz2. (That said, I'm going by this 2012 source, so I would expect there's some more recent publications available.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat questionable neutrality of a brand page

First, this article seemingly conflates the branded Glofish® with any type of fluorescent Genetically modified fish (there's other brands in some Asian countries, selling e.g. modified Japanese rice fish). As the history section explains, the early development of fluorescent fish is not brand-specific to Glofish. This is only one brand, but in the article can appear as the sole seller of GM fish. That the very last sentence of the history section makes a mention of this does not mean that the rest of the article won't give this impression. My issue is not with the fact that Glofish is the only brand that sell pet GM fish in North America at the moment. While this brand is not legal within the European Union, that's not to say that no brand's fish (or other pets) ever will be. This highlights my first issue with the article; one of making Glofish out to be "the" GM fish brand, even though GM fish should be considered proven to be market viable to other companies.

Second, I'd like to see this article contain information about risks other than concluding that the florescence increases vulnerability to being predated. It has for example been reported in the journal "Science"[1] that there's established populations of fluorescent fish in some creeks in Brazil where the habitat is favorable to the Zebrafish. These creeks apparently lack the predators that otherwise would keep them from establishing in new environments. Another possible risk is hybridization and within-species mixing, where we don't know if this color variation could pose a threat to native populations of the zebrafish (and other more endangered species of fish). I'm sure there's more concerns to consider, or that could crop up in the future.

As such I'd like to see sections not specifically related to the brand to be moved to either Genetically modified fish, or a new one focusing on pet GM fish. If not currently, then at least soon in the future. Kameloso (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

What type of Jellyfish were used?

It says that GFP was used but what type jellyfish did they take that from? OrangeTigerLilly (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)