3 ms·
This may be naive, but I would assume better results from the strategy of engineering the bacteria rather than the chloroplasts/mitochondria. The latter are mas
by jl2718 7y ago
This may be naive, but I would assume better results from the strategy of engineering the bacteria rather than the chloroplasts/mitochondria. The latter are massively conserved, efficiently coded, and take a long time to iterate along with the host. Bacteria evolve quickly and we have great tools for engineering them. The right variants might already exist naturally; you just need to find a selection mechanism. Alternatively, perhaps getting the crop to express the symbiotic byproduct of legumes might be simpler. Does anybody have insight as to why the Voigt lab chose to do it that way?
- text70 7y agoThe Voight lab does it this way because they are a plant engineering lab and they have a grant to try out the experiments. Simple as that. You would be right to assume that engineering the bacteria would be easier. There are already companies that work to provide specialized nitrogen-fixing bacteria strains for agricultural use. However governmental regulations for using a genetically modified bacteria vs a genetically modified plant for widespread agriculture use are different.