Allergy-Free Kittens Produced

An anonymous reader writes "San Diego-based company, Allerca, said that using a technique known as genetic divergence, it has 'bred the world's first hypoallergenic kitten, opening the doors and arms of millions of pet lovers for whom cuddling a cat has, until now, been a curse ... After identifying the genes of kittens with proteins that provide less of a reaction in humans, they selectively bred litters over several generations to end up with an allergy-friendly super cat.' The company says its customers are expected to take delivery of their $4,000 hypoallergenic kittens in early 2007."

Re:slashvertizement...

[kfg]

Scientific Doubts [newscientist.com]

Denver Business Journal: Law Suit [64.233.161.104]

KFG

We have a winner.

[TCQuad]

Hasn't this been on Slashdot before, a few months ago?

You are correct, sir. [slashdot.org]

Re:stop playing God.

[RyoShin]

From reading the article, it looks like they didn't do any genetic modification. Instead, they used genetic testing, and did selective breeding based on that testing to get a cat without the protein.

Allerca announced their plans three years ago, and started collecting deposits from allergic cat fans, but have now decided that their plans to use RNA interference were taking a back seat to a more traditional breeding approach, albeit one that uses genetic testing to select individuals that express low levels of FEL D1.

A link in that quote goes to a NewScientist.com article [newscientist.com], which appears to have more details:

A California company has turned to conventional breeding to deliver the non-allergenic kittens it promised two years ago.

Re:Man, I hate cats

[B3ryllium]

You know, there's already a (possibly) hypoallergenic breed of cat from some russian genetic line ... they're cute, too [wikipedia.org].

Re:Man, I hate cats

[Anonymous Coward]

I can attest to the veracity of this as I know someone with a terrible case of allergies who has a Siberian cat which does not affect him in the slightest (allergy wise). Instead of wasting $4,000, try buying a Siberian.

Re:For my $4000....Offtopicish

[KDR_11k]

Some farmers sell their stuff for a premium because they are using "natural" methods for farming (don't recall the English term). They have certificates for that. If cross pollination caused your fields to be "infested" with GMO plants you lose that certificate AND you have to pay the patent holder a license fee for "using" their GMOs (while actually the producer or owner of the GMOs should have to pay you damages).

Here in Germany the conservatives push to broaden patent protection on genetically modified plants and prevent GMO infestations from counting as damage (spewing FUD about alienating the GM crop industry without these changes) while the social democrats push for restrictions on patenting organisms and laws to prevent GMO infestations. The stances on genetic modifications for medical purposes are reversed, the cons want to outlaw that while the dems want to further it. I think the situation is the same in the US. That's one of the things you should factor in when determining who to vote for.

for the article: i have a kitten at home, never seen it having any allergies, got the kitten
for free from a neighbour and saved 4k$ appearantly :D

You got it the wrong way around, these kittens won't trigger a cat hair allergy a human may have.

Re:amazingly rude

[value_added]

Why put "Not Show Quality" on the papers?

The hard truth of the matter is dogs, like cats, cows, horses and just about any other animal you're familiar with is the result of selective breeding. There was no such thing as a German Shepherd or an English Sheepdog until someone decided (hundreds or more years ago) on what they liked (or needed) and went about breeding the offspring to come up with the desired result.

Breeding, regrettably, requires a certain amount of inbreeding or you won't get where you want to go. That includes everything from nationalities, to the English Royal Family down to cats and dogs. And with inbreeding, problems are likely to crop up so the process has to be carefully controlled.

How that process is managed or controlled is a wide-open subject, but typically it comes to down breeder's reputation and abilities in conjunction with the established rules of various organisations (the AKC being one example in the dog world) to which the breeder belongs. Effectively, an animal that wins shows is prized. To show an animal, a full documented history of the animal has to be provided. No papers, no ability to show.

When a breeder decides to give or sell off an animal without papers, the effect of that decision is twofold; first, the new owner lacks sufficient information to successfully breed the animal; and secondly, the new owner is prevented from ever being able to show the animal. The reasons behind it aren't capricious. The breeder has simply determined that his line of animals would be negatively impacted if "substandard" animals were allowed to breed, and the breed, in general, would be negatively impacted as well. Keep in mind that "substandard" can include everything from appearance and temperament, to genetic defects (bad hips, heart problems, eye problems, etc.). If a person doesn't care about a breed, that's fine. The responsibility of the continuing existence and success of a particular breed, however, has to fall on someone's shoulders, and that someone is ultimately the breeder. Consequently, substandard animals are almost always sold spayed or neutered.

If you want to get last place in a show, that's just fine. Somebody needs to get last place. What is their problem?

"Last place" is fine, but I think you're speaking metaphorically. Animals like that don't belong in breeding programs or shows (agility shows, etc. are the exceptions), but can and do make great pets. And judging from what the typical person has as a pet, it seems oddball animals are indeed popular and loved.