I don't see how this is superior to having the plant itself create THC which is much simpler and cheaper. Other than being a cool trick, how is this going to change the world, as the article claims? It really doesn't specify how the THC produced from yeast is any better or different than that produced from the plant. Can yeast production be scaled up in ways that plat production can't? Or is it just that it might be more illogically acceptable to certain people because it comes from yeast?
If you have the opportunity, go tour an Anheuser-Busch production facility. They are the perfect demonstration of operating on a massive scale with yeast, what ever you feel about their end product. Will this change the world? No. Will is make it possible to drastically reduce the cost of producing these compounds on an industrial scale? With what's described in the article? No, because it still requires specially prepared source chemicals.
"Still, it’s an enormous challenge to modify yeast to synthesize THC or cannabidiol from raw materials like sugar; the current strains in Dr. Kayser’s laboratory are capable of only the final stage of the synthesis. Ultimately, biochemists may need to insert more than a dozen genes into the yeast."
If they solve the above, then it will become interesting, and I'm sure they are rushing headlong to solve it.
They will learn from these experiments and if possible be able to create other compounds. I don't think the market for THC compounds is large enough to justify a massive yeast production, but if they were able to produce more than just THC with the yeast alone, it may be worth it.
It makes sense when the plant is still illegal, while the yeast product is available as a drug for patients. This would be a real money maker, but I think the plant is still the better deal for patients and should be legal.
William Randolph Hearst spent a lot of time and money getting both marijuana and hemp criminalized in the early part of the last century. His motive was to change the way we produce paper (he owned lots of forests and wanted to move from hemp pulp to paper pulp). So, our laws criminalize a fibrous plant, not a psycho-active substance produced by one strain of that plat. Having yeast produce THC does an end run around our silly laws.
I had the same reaction -- what's the practical value here that makes it news?
One possible clue is in this quote: "[Cannabidiol] production from plants is a bit complicated." This might turn out to be by far the best way to obtain pure cannabidiol (and other cannabinoids).
I suspect that the long-term goal is to demonstrate new chemical synthesis techniques of interest to the pharmaceutical industry. The choice of THC (& hydrocodone) as an endpoint might have been somewhat arbitrary.
There was a SF author (Bear or Brin?) who wrote an essay back in the 90's about the future of drug wars. Much of the enforcement back then was on stopping the import of drugs from overseas. But once gene splicing created a way to produce the drugs within the USA, the enforce would switch to raiding warehouses, etc. The next step would be when the technology reduced the drug manufacture to a table top box that could be in any home (think make your own insulin). Then the enforcement has to raid peoples homes. The last step is when the technology allows the drugs to be produced by symbionts growing within a person.
The buck probably stops at the table-top box. Prohibition-era homes weren't typically raided for small-scale alcohol production. Indeed, products like this "grape juice"[0] included instructions on how not to make wine.
> I don't see how this is superior to having the plant itself create THC which is much simpler and cheaper.
The plant is simpler and cheaper now; this looks like it is in the early stages. The yeasts cannot make THC from just simple, readily available precursors like sugars, and the yields are low, according to the article. But imagine if this is improved. Suppose that THC yeast could be improved so that making large amounts of THC with yeast is as simple as making CO2 in a loaf of bread. Just feed sugars and watch it multiply, then collect the THC.
> how is this going to change the world
If a THC "super yeast" is developed, it will be hard for the authorities to control trafficking, for one thing.
> How the THC produced from yeast is any better or different than that produced from the plant.
THC is THC. It's a compound. If it looks like this molecule picture:
I don't know, it's hard to imagine anything being cheaper than large-scale hemp farming. It's a very strong crop that grows in most parts of the world and can survive a lot of hardship. And the yield is very high, my quick estimate indicates about 300 lbs/acre/yr of THC extract. Assuming that the production cost is similar to that of corn, it should cost about 200 USD/acre/yr.
I find it hard to conceive that yeast could cultivate a pound of THC for less than a dollar.
THC is THC. It's a compound.
True. But what matters here are the impurities. Synthetic THC medications like Marinol are associated with side effects not found in patients using Marijuana. They're both the same THC, but made through different processes and therefore with different impurities. Maybe there's some nasty trace impurity in Marinol, or maybe some of the other cannabinoids in cannabis counteract these side effects.
It's about more than just THC. It's also about cannabidiol, cannabidivarin, tetrahydrocannabivarin and other substances that are also produced and much lower quantities. THC seems more like the proof of concept, with the lesser-known drugs being where this will really shine.
> European regulators, he said, are eager for a way to create a steady supply of THC and other cannabinoids without actually cultivating marijuana. “They are in fear that these plants will be grown and will support some illegal farming,”
So the regulators are eager to flood the market with GMO THC, so they can stop people from growing their own organic THC? Sounds like they just want to commercialize & control it.
"It is the ambition and intention of authors that tactical usage of this broad-sweeping technique may rapidly and at low cost satisfy a global demand in what may be termed a “grass-roots” bio-engineering project worthy of the 3rd Millennium; bringing to fruition micro-mass-productivity.
"
Sorry, but I'm going to be "that guy", because someone is inevitably going to say "you can't patent that!", and there is generally a lot of misinformation about patents on HN. That particular document is a published patent application, and not a granted patent. You can tell on Google Patents in the field on the right that says: "Publication type: Application".
Moreover, using USPTO Pair[0], you can check the status of such patents, and it turns out that this one has been abandoned since 2011 for failure to respond to the Patent Examiner. So no, there is no patent on this (at least, not the one you pointed to).
How do you mean? Patents are generally reasonably expensive to pursue in time and money. I'm curious to hear more about the prank aspect of this patent application if you care to share.
Yes, the regulators want to. The people actually doing the research want to be able to focus on the components that are in marijuana, because some of the chemicals that are produced in small quantities seem to have substantial effects in certain conditions. A simpler organism, like yeast, means they can minimize the variables, and provide better research and better quality.
That's gloriously tinfoil paranoid and saturated with meaningless buzzwords. The conspiracy, if there is one, is the ordinary conservative conspiracy against fun.
Yeast is a great vehicle for organic molecule production.
They want to do what we do with all medication: Isolate the active agent and remove everything else.
This has several advantages: It makes dosing possible, as natural products can have vastly varying amounts of the active agent. You don't have to consider the effects of other active ingredients which might also come in varying amounts (this is especially true for cannabis, which contains several different active cannabinoids).
This is exactly what you want to do when you really want to use cannabis as a medicine instead of using the medical system as a trojan horse for full legalisation. It's similar to how you get pills with caffeine at the pharmacy and coffee at other places.
If you let cannabis plants or genetically modified yeasts generate the THC before you extract it doesn't matter. It's only a question of cost. You will get exactly the same extract that is in no way distinguishable. Most arguments against GMO don't apply for modified bacteria and yeasts in biotech - they're not viable to live outside of the lab.
Also it's pretty funny that you speak about organic and not commercial. Most cannabis is grown in hydroculture with chemical fertilizer and produced for a financial gain (other word for this is commercially).
Yes, it's a variety of ingredients, but while medically-used THC comes from a cannabis plant, it's often been purified so much that it's still only THC.
I have a strong dislike for these artificial THC drug pushes, because they ignore the real issue: the fact that marijuana helps people with a variety of medical ailments is largely because of the over 400+ cannabinoids, of which THC-cb1 and THC-cb2 are only two, while we are ignoring the other ones individually and as a compound/complementary effect.
For example, I know vets with PTSD who say mj is the only thing that helps them, but some of them are in states where the VA will stop providing care or withhold medication/treatment/payments if they test positive... but the VA has a deal with some pharmaceutical companies and it's legal to give two variations of synthetic THC, and every single one of the guys I know who have tried it have said it was nothing like mj, provided almost none of the benefits, and was often a very negative experience.
Don't misunderstand, I worked in biotech for a while and encourage the learning process of using methods like this to potentially produce and study certain drugs, but this is a drug that doesn't have a supply problem, because it's everywhere, it's easy to grow, it only has a legal problem. Synthetics seem like a way to capitalize legally on a black market that shouldn't exist.
This is exactly why I have an issue with meal replacement (e.g. soylent) stuff being used in the long term, or reductionistic nutrition advice that considers food only as a source of protein, carbs, fat and fiber. The fact is, we're discovering a ton of compounds in a ton of foods that have unexpected effects and benefits, not to mention synergistic effects that happen only when multiple compounds are together. To pretend that we know how all of it works seems like hubris to me.
Absolutely true. However, to make rules without foundation (like the VA disallows cannabis) is just shabby, which is what I think GP was mainly talking about :)
The problem is that in order to really "test" the hypothesis that soylent is equivalent to a healthy diet, you need to compare them under conditions of stress, and over long time periods.
Sure soylent might work for the average sedentary type in the short term, but how does it fare for an athlete pushing the boundaries of their body? Additionally, what is the lifespan of a soylent consumer compared to someone who eats a high quality diet loaded with vegetables? I would argue both cases would show the vast inferiority of soylent.
You'll free up lots of time and money to do better things than eating? Sex, work, sleep, punching myself in the face, pretty much anything beats cooking, eating, and cleaning.
I wonder what the purification efficiency is.
For example they've been working on GMO-octane from green algae for a couple of decades. But refining its low concentrations is still uncompetitive with petroleum.
also consider that that octane is actually not the octane that you put into your car gas tank, ita's actually closer to a diesel. (linear alkanes vs. branched alkanes)
THC extraction is not unlike caffeine extraction, which is pretty easy with liquefied CO2. You could even do pharmacy-grade column extracts if you wanted to make it extra pure.
dance song! daffy dance prod vivid official video worldwide soon
new dance song hit the daffy produced by vivid! if you like music check this dance song out this is the the official video too the dance! tutorial on HOW to do the Dance coming soon make sure you guysa be on the look for more exclusive videos! this the link guys! https://youtu.be/Hub032PuylU
As an avid sourdough enthusiast, I can assure you that this is wrong :)
Sourdough is a culture that's (mostly) a stable colony of wild yeast and lactic acid bacteria. Generally speaking, the yeast provides the rising power, and the lactic acid bacteria provide lactic acid giving the dough a sour (acidic) flavour.
62 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] thread"Still, it’s an enormous challenge to modify yeast to synthesize THC or cannabidiol from raw materials like sugar; the current strains in Dr. Kayser’s laboratory are capable of only the final stage of the synthesis. Ultimately, biochemists may need to insert more than a dozen genes into the yeast."
If they solve the above, then it will become interesting, and I'm sure they are rushing headlong to solve it.
Holy crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine#Synthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#Synthesis_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Industrial
Or maybe not, but we won't know until we start experimenting and exploring. If we knew exactly what would work in advance, it wouldn't be research.
One possible clue is in this quote: "[Cannabidiol] production from plants is a bit complicated." This might turn out to be by far the best way to obtain pure cannabidiol (and other cannabinoids).
I suspect that the long-term goal is to demonstrate new chemical synthesis techniques of interest to the pharmaceutical industry. The choice of THC (& hydrocodone) as an endpoint might have been somewhat arbitrary.
[0]: http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/05/wine-and-prohibition-w...
The plant is simpler and cheaper now; this looks like it is in the early stages. The yeasts cannot make THC from just simple, readily available precursors like sugars, and the yields are low, according to the article. But imagine if this is improved. Suppose that THC yeast could be improved so that making large amounts of THC with yeast is as simple as making CO2 in a loaf of bread. Just feed sugars and watch it multiply, then collect the THC.
> how is this going to change the world
If a THC "super yeast" is developed, it will be hard for the authorities to control trafficking, for one thing.
> How the THC produced from yeast is any better or different than that produced from the plant.
THC is THC. It's a compound. If it looks like this molecule picture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol
it's THC, whether it came from camel's ear wax, or a cannabis plant.
I don't know, it's hard to imagine anything being cheaper than large-scale hemp farming. It's a very strong crop that grows in most parts of the world and can survive a lot of hardship. And the yield is very high, my quick estimate indicates about 300 lbs/acre/yr of THC extract. Assuming that the production cost is similar to that of corn, it should cost about 200 USD/acre/yr.
I find it hard to conceive that yeast could cultivate a pound of THC for less than a dollar.
THC is THC. It's a compound.
True. But what matters here are the impurities. Synthetic THC medications like Marinol are associated with side effects not found in patients using Marijuana. They're both the same THC, but made through different processes and therefore with different impurities. Maybe there's some nasty trace impurity in Marinol, or maybe some of the other cannabinoids in cannabis counteract these side effects.
I'd imagine in a prison it'd be very valuable.
Great for home growers as well, I'd image easier and more accurate THC delivery.
So the regulators are eager to flood the market with GMO THC, so they can stop people from growing their own organic THC? Sounds like they just want to commercialize & control it.
If they really wanted to commercialize and control the sale of marijuana, they would legalize it.
Well that's a new one, because THC isn't an "organism", nor is it "genetically modified".
GMO as an adjective is prone to RAS syndrome - e.g. GMO corn is "genetically modified organism corn".
"It is the ambition and intention of authors that tactical usage of this broad-sweeping technique may rapidly and at low cost satisfy a global demand in what may be termed a “grass-roots” bio-engineering project worthy of the 3rd Millennium; bringing to fruition micro-mass-productivity. "
And he still makes the news: http://www.c-ville.com/ansons-crawl-city-council-candidate-d...
Moreover, using USPTO Pair[0], you can check the status of such patents, and it turns out that this one has been abandoned since 2011 for failure to respond to the Patent Examiner. So no, there is no patent on this (at least, not the one you pointed to).
[0] Publicly available database by USPTO: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Yeast is a great vehicle for organic molecule production.
This has several advantages: It makes dosing possible, as natural products can have vastly varying amounts of the active agent. You don't have to consider the effects of other active ingredients which might also come in varying amounts (this is especially true for cannabis, which contains several different active cannabinoids).
This is exactly what you want to do when you really want to use cannabis as a medicine instead of using the medical system as a trojan horse for full legalisation. It's similar to how you get pills with caffeine at the pharmacy and coffee at other places.
If you let cannabis plants or genetically modified yeasts generate the THC before you extract it doesn't matter. It's only a question of cost. You will get exactly the same extract that is in no way distinguishable. Most arguments against GMO don't apply for modified bacteria and yeasts in biotech - they're not viable to live outside of the lab.
Also it's pretty funny that you speak about organic and not commercial. Most cannabis is grown in hydroculture with chemical fertilizer and produced for a financial gain (other word for this is commercially).
Glucose is still glucose whether it comes from sugar cane, corn, beets, or other sources.
For example, I know vets with PTSD who say mj is the only thing that helps them, but some of them are in states where the VA will stop providing care or withhold medication/treatment/payments if they test positive... but the VA has a deal with some pharmaceutical companies and it's legal to give two variations of synthetic THC, and every single one of the guys I know who have tried it have said it was nothing like mj, provided almost none of the benefits, and was often a very negative experience.
Don't misunderstand, I worked in biotech for a while and encourage the learning process of using methods like this to potentially produce and study certain drugs, but this is a drug that doesn't have a supply problem, because it's everywhere, it's easy to grow, it only has a legal problem. Synthetics seem like a way to capitalize legally on a black market that shouldn't exist.
If nobody gives living on eg. Soylent a shot, we'll never learn one way or the other.
Sure soylent might work for the average sedentary type in the short term, but how does it fare for an athlete pushing the boundaries of their body? Additionally, what is the lifespan of a soylent consumer compared to someone who eats a high quality diet loaded with vegetables? I would argue both cases would show the vast inferiority of soylent.
Sourdough is a culture that's (mostly) a stable colony of wild yeast and lactic acid bacteria. Generally speaking, the yeast provides the rising power, and the lactic acid bacteria provide lactic acid giving the dough a sour (acidic) flavour.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourdough#Biology_and_chemistr...