Talk:GloFish

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  California 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Taxonomic description? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bioluminecence is not fluorecence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Illegal to breed? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Time line 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Public perception of pet GMO fish 

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

message: 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" 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)
thread_title:  Somewhat questionable neutrality of a brand page 

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