Destruction of the Biosphere as the Result of Negative Influences of Different Factors on Living Organisms and the Environment

  • Irina Ermakova
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


Microorganisms, plants and animals play an important role in the ecological balance and in the formation of the climate on the planet. Physical, chemical and biological factors can influence living organisms negatively. It is well known that artificially created viruses and pathogenic bacteria can cause large epidemics, infecting extensive regions. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), obtained by using of imperfect methods, are more dangerous and can cause high levels of mortality and infertility of living organisms and their subsequent disappearance. Our biosphere can be destroyed by different negative factors, produced by uncontrolled human activity. Can we stop the degradation of the biosphere, protect nature from destruction, and humans, animals and plants from their disappearing?


Biosphere Ecology Climate Radiation Chemical factors Geneti­cally modified Humanity Organisms Environment 


  1. 1.
    Alekseev VV, Chekarev KV, Rustamov NA, Koveshnikov LA (1999) Perspectives of the development of alternative energy and its influence on the environmental. Kacivelly, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benachour N, Seralini GE (2009) Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem Res Toxicol 22(1):97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birch ANE, Geoghegan IE, Majerus MEN, Hackett C, Allen J (1996) Interactions between plant resistance genes, pest aphid populations and beneficial aphid predators. Annual report of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, pp 68–72Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (2000) The degeneration of Y chromosomes. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 355:1563–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chirkov YuG (2002) Time of chimeras. Big gene games. Moscow “Academic book”Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ermakova IV (2004) On the way to Turner’s syndrome: new aspects of human development. In: 12th AEP Congress, Geneva, 14–18 April 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ermakova I (2006) Influence of genetically modified soy on the birth-weight and survival of rat pups. In: Proceedings “epigenetics, transgenic plants and risk assessment”, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ermakova IV (2007) GM soybeans revisiting a controversial format. Nat Biotechnol 25(12):1351–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ermakova IV (2009) Influence of soy with EPSPS CP4 gene on the physiological state and reproductive functions of rats in two first generations. Modern problems of science and education. Biol Sci 5:15–21Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ewen SW, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354(9187):1353–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graves JAM (2000) Human Y chromosome, sex determination, and spermatogenesis. Biol Reprod 63:667–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho MW, Tappeser B (1997) Potential contributions of horizontal gene transfer to the transboundary movement of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology. In: Mulongoy KJ (ed) Transboundary movement of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology: issues and opportunities for policy-makers. International Academy of the Environment, Switzerland, pp 171–193Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kozloff LM, Turner MA, Arellano F (1991) Formation of bacterial membrane ice-nucleating lipoglycoprotein complexes. J Bacteriol 173(20):6528–6536Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuznetcov VV, Kulikov AM (2005) Genetically modified organisms and received from them products: real and potential risks. Rus Chem J 69(4):70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lindow SE, Arny DC, Upper CD (1978) Distribution of ice nucleation-active bacteria on plants in nature. Appl Environ Microbiol 36(6):831–838Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malatesta M, Caporalony C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MBL, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G (2002) Ultrastructural, morphometrical and immunocytochemical analysis of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct 27:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E, Rocchi MBL, Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G (2003) Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur J Histochem 47:385–388Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malygin AG, Ermakova IV (2008) Soy diet suppresses reproduction of rodents. Modern problems of science and education. Biol Sciences 6:26Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Myhr AI, Traavik T (2002) The precautionary principle: scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release. J Agric Environ Ethics 15:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nazarova AF, Ermakova IV (2010) Influence of soy diet on the reproductive functions and hormonal status of Wistar rats and Campbell hamsters. Modern problems of science and education. Biol sciences 4:13–18Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Orser C, Staskawicz BJ, Panopoulos NJ, Dahlbeck D, Lindow SE (1985) Cloning and expression of bacterial ice nucleation genes in Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol 164(1):359–366Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, Mattes J, Rothenberg ME, Foster PS, Higgins TJV, Hogan SP (2005) Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem 53:9023–9030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pusztai A (1998) Report of project coordinator on data produced at the Rowett Research Institute. SOAEFD flexible fund project RO 818. 22 October 1998Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quist D, Chapela I (2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414(6863):541–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schubbert R, Hohlweg U, Renz D, Doerfler W (1998) On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission in the fetus. Mol Genes Genetics 259:569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seralini GE, Cellier D, Vendomois JS (2007) New analysis of a rat feeding study with genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52(4):596–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Third World Network (2000) World scientists statement. Supplementary information of the hazards of genetic engineering biotechnology. Third World NetworkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Turner MA, Arellano F, Kozloff LM (1991) Components of ice nucleation structures of bacteria. J Bacteriol 173(20):6515–6527Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Turrini A, Sbrana C, Giovannetti M (2008) Experimental systems to monitor the impact of transgenic corn on keystone soil microorganisms. In: 16 IFOAM organic world congress, Modena, Italy, 16–20 June 2008Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van OsJ, Spauwen J, Lieb R, Wittchen HU, Krabbendam L (2004) Do big cities turn on schizophrenia genes? Results from three cohort studies. In: 12th AEP congress, Geneva, 14–18 April 2004Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J (2008) Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report: Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3. Institut für Ernährung, and Forschungsinttitut für biologischen Landbau, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilson M, Lindow SE (1994) Ecological similarity and coexistence of epiphytic ice-nucleating (ice+) pseudomonas syringae strains and a non-ice-nucleating (ice-). Biol Control Agent Appl Environ Microbiol 60(9):3128–3137Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wilson A, Latham J, Steinbrecher R (2006) Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnol Genetic Eng Rev 23:209–237Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yablokov AV, Baranov AS (2004). GMO and their products are dangerous. In: GMO is the latest threat for Russia. Documents for the President of Russia, Moscow, 6–21Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yang L, Ding J, Zhang C, Jia J, Weng H, Liu W, Zhang D (2005) Estimating the copy number of transgenes in transformed rice by real-time quantitative PCR. Plant Cell Rep 23(10–11):759–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zakharov VM, Chubinishvili AT, Baranov AS, Borisov VI, Valeckiy AV, Kriajeva NG, Chistiakova EK (2001) Health of the environment: methods and practice of estimation in Moscow, Centre of ecopoliticsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zangerl R, McKenna D, Wraight CL, Carroll M, Ficarello P, Warner R, Berenbaum MR (2001) Effects of exposure to event 176 Bacillus thuringiensis corn pollen on monarch and black swallowtail caterpillars under field conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(21):11908–11912CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institution of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of RAS, Academy of Geopolitical ProblemsMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations