7 ms·
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 ch
by joesmo 11y ago
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?
- rch 11y agoPerhaps the process is both scalable and patentable.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoScalable? Yes. Patentable? No. Although, the yeast could be a trade secret.
- joshribakoff 11y agoMonsanto holds patents on plant seeds. Why would yeast differ?
- mey 11y agoIf 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.
- warmwaffles 11y agoThey 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.
- Kalium 11y agoMicrobial chemical factories. Now there's a hell of a pharmaceutical future. Combine with GMOs and CRISPR-CAS9... Holy crap.
- nitrogen 11y agoIt's actually a pharmaceutical present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine#Synthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine#Synthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#Synthesis_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#Synthesis_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Industrial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#Industrial
- rmetzler 11y agoIt 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.
- ori_b 11y agoPerhaps it can be generalized to compounds other than THC. Possibly even drugs that do not exist in nature. 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.
- spinlock 11y agoWilliam 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.
- mtdewcmu 11y agoI 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.
- hnnicker 11y agoThere 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.
- eru 11y agoThere's a guy with ethanol producing yeast in his intestines.
- shabble 11y agoThere's the 1990 short by Stross - Yellow Snow: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/toast/toast.html#ysnow http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/toast/to... along these lines.
- redblacktree 11y agoThe 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. [0]: http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/05/wine-and-prohibition-wine-bricks-american-wine-consumption-history.html http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/05/wine-and-prohibition-w...
- kazinator 11y ago> 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol it's THC, whether it came from camel's ear wax, or a cannabis plant.
- adrusi 11y agoThe plant is simpler and cheaper now 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.
- aaron695 11y agoI assume - Easier to secure crops. Easier and more accurate to grow, less pesticides etc. 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.
- Sanddancer 11y agoIt'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.