33 ms·
RNA demethylation increases rice and potato yields 50%
- KETpXDDzR 5y agoDemethylation: [...] removal of a methyl group (CH3) from a molecule. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demethylation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demethylation Is anyone familiar with this process and can explain this paper to me like I'm five? :)
- nobodyknowsyoda 5y agoUnfortunately don’t have time to check out the paper, but vaguely I am aware that methyl groups are like an accessory that can be attached or detached (by the cell, normally) to an arbitrary section of DNA within your chromosome. And it can be used in this way for regulation of DNA expression. Because when the methyl group is there it’s harder for that section of DNA to be read (transcribed) because the methyl group is physically in the way. The train can’t run on the track because there’s a big rock on it DNA is like code, but then there’s this whole meta level of DNA regulation that determines whether each section of code is used, and how much So by demethylizing some section of the DNA, implicitly that means the scientists made that section of DNA be used more often. And it just so happens that when that section of DNA is used more often it contributes to various processes that ultimately end up with the plant organism as a whole producing more “yield”, or parts of the plant that we like to eat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation
- credit_guy 5y agoWow. Thanks for the explanation. It seems to me then that this result is a slam dunk Nobel. Yield improvement without the GMO stigma.
- wolfretcrap 5y agoHow is removing (obfuscation!?) smth from the DNA not genetic modification?
- nwatson 5y agoIn dealing with methylation one doesn't add to or remove the "code" to synthesize any particular protein from the cell(s) of the organism, the DNA/genes per se remains intact. The process inhibits / allows synthesis of particular proteins from the genes/DNA. Think of it like software -- by flipping an A/B Switch in software configuration you don't add to or remove from a program, you merely turn on/off certain features. Same with methylation -- it's the A/B Switch for protein synthesis, FWIU.
- oh_sigh 5y agoI think most lay people would view this as genetic modification, or at least "genetic manipulation", which might be even scarier. Having said that, I'm pro-GMOs and always roll my eyes when brands go out of their way to say that they proudly don't use GMOs.
- bawolff 5y agoTechnically correct might be the best kind of correct, but i doubt it will change hearts and minds.
- adrianN 5y agoIt's enough to circumvent regulations for marking products as GMO.
- bawolff 5y agoThe EU definition is "organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or natural recombination". https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC57223 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC5... I'm honestly not sure which side of the definition this falls under. It certainly doesn't occur naturally.
- Scaevolus 5y agoThis is GMO. They added a human gene to rice and potatoes to get the improved yields. People that dislike GMO aren't going to be any happier about adding _human_ genes to plants.
- tingletech 5y agoAs long as it’s not round up ready or otherwise encourage more pesticid use I’m cool with it
- ncmncm 5y agoOr making the plant produce pesticide of its own, causing bugs to develop resistance to measures needed by organic farmers, and also dosing humans with what would otherwise be easily rinsed off.
- shmageggy 5y agoI'm looking forward to the day when we can collectively disentangle GMO from all of the other negative practices of big ag. I don't see a reason why responsible genetic modification can't be a part of a sustainable and equitable future agricultural system.
- londons_explore 5y ago"Genetically modifying food to increase yield is good for the environment" is a true statement, but you're going to need an awfully good PR firm to persuade the public it's true...
- shmageggy 5y agoYeah exactly. And not only yield, but natural pest resistance, etc. I'm also imagining how genetic modifications might eventually be environmentally beneficial in the context of whole-ecosystem engineering if/when we ever move beyond a monocrop model, such as modifying native organisms to counter invasive species, etc. Admittedly a bit sci-fi currently but in principle possible!
- pazimzadeh 5y agoIn this case it's RNA not DNA. Demethylating DNA is like uncommenting a line of code; demethylating RNA is like uncommenting compiled/assembly rather than the source.
- eruleman 5y agoThank you for this incredible analogy.
- nobodyknowsyoda 5y agoOops, thanks
- KirillPanov 5y agoI can't explain the paper, but if DNA is genetic ROM, methylation is like one bit of RAM available on each digit [*]. Most of the cellular machinery tries pretty damn hard to make exact copies of DNA. The methylation bits, by contrast, get deliberately flipped on and off all the time. [*] Technically only A and C can accept methylation, but in a double helix you'll always have either an A or a C on one side or the other at every position (A pairs with T, C pairs with G).
- trasz 5y agoDeliberately flipped based on what?
- KirillPanov 5y agoThat is an area of very active research. I mean the exact chemical mechanism for the flip is some enzyme, and the flip certainly affects gene expression. As to why the cellular systems flip these bits, great question :)
- ARandomerDude 5y ago* Assumed false until replicated
- stevenhuang 5y ago> We demonstrate that the presence of FTO stimulates root meristem cell proliferation and tiller bud formation and promotes photosynthetic efficiency and drought tolerance but has no effect on mature cell size, shoot meristem cell proliferation, root diameter, plant height or ploidy Looks promising but I wonder what impacts this will have on the nutritional content?
- tehjoker 5y agoWithout some analysis, it's not clear to me that it's not just water weight. They did say the cell size is similar to normal which could be a proxy for that.
- mgarfias 5y agoI, for one, welcome our new potato-human hybrid overlords.
- frankosaurus 5y ago50% increase in yield is impressive. That's about what the C4 rice initiative had promised. (And C4 rice is still years away of being a reality, IIRC.)
- AngryData 5y agoThat is neat, but we should also look at the amount of fertilizer this change will cause. We are already running soil at the redline and we have more trouble getting the fertilizer into the soil in a healthy way. If this ends up killing the soil 5 years faster through overutilization, it really isn't an improvement as it takes a ton of effort and time to revitalize soil.
- bpodgursky 5y ago> We are already running soil at the redline This is not a scientific statement at all; it's an attempt at an analogy that doesn't work. Farming w/ intensive fertilization doesn't "kill soil"; the soil is basically just a substrate to hold water and fertilizer, and a ton of farmland in the US is basically this. It's not natural, but it's a steady-state. And if the change here just makes the potato and rice more efficient, you could get similar yield improvements from organic farming. Just rotate a legume in every few years, you're not going to break the ecosystem by growing potatoes faster.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago> The soil is basically just a substrate to hold water and fertilizer, This view is incredibly harmful. What lives in the soil is important too, small animals, insects, mushrooms... And the soil supports this. The density, temperature, texture are all factors to it. Every time I get to the US, I'm aghast at the pitiful taste of the fruits and veggies. The way you are growing things produces volumes yes, but of tasteless empty shells of a plant. Of course then you put sugar on everything because the raw thing is aweful to eat. So you get obese people with nutrient deficiency, on top of a dead soil that is an ecological disaster. Seing only one dimension of something or maximizing productivity always leads to some kind of unbalance, and the effects are far reaching.
- bpodgursky 5y agoI sorta suspect that soil conservation is just a vehicle for your complaining, not an end in itself.
- ncmncm 5y agoNot to be a poop, but I will want to see confirmation in a US or European lab before I believe this. Incentives for fraud, and likelihood of getting away with it, are very strong in China. A mark in its favor is that Nature has good reasons to try to ensure the work is real, but they have been taken in, in the recent past.
- soperj 5y agoIncentives for fraud aren't much smaller this side of the pond. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
- ncmncm 5y agoAgreed, but consequences are more likely. Not enough, mind. Fraudulently confirming fraudulent work seems less likely than original fraud, though, unless the parties are in cahoots.
- d110af5ccf 5y agoSuch incentives are somewhat more isolated in the west. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but ~10 years ago the Chinese government offered bounties to researchers for publishing in various western journals. The bounties varied in size based on perceived prestige. The result (rampant fraud) was entirely predictable.
- FooBarWidget 5y agoWhy is predictable that offering a reward to get published in prestigious journals would result in fraud? Why would any scientist who wants to further one's career, not want to publish in prestigious journals? Why would adding an extra incentive on top, result in more fraud than otherwise already would have happened?
- generalizations 5y ago
- londons_explore 5y agoI would expect a 50% increase in yield change like this to lead to no academic paper, but instead rapid rapid black market distribution around the world, while someone gets rich to the tune of billions of dollars... The fact they wrote an academic paper instead tells me it probably has some big downside...
- modshatereality 5y agoMaybe its 50% more carbs, without any more iron or potasium uptake.
- londons_explore 5y agoI've got a feeling that, provided the minerals you care about are in the soil, it would be pretty straightforward to selectively breed to get more of them into the leaves, probably with a small yield penalty. I think just nobody who farms these crops directly cares about these minerals because that isn't what earns them more on the rice exchange.
- oniq 5y agoOr very limited upside, potatoes yield is already high enough to remove a lot of nutrients from the soil. The limiting factor may not be plant yield at all but access to nutrients or water.
- mnw21cam 5y agoAmusingly enough, the FTO gene was one of the earliest genes where a link was found between common variants and a trait in humans[0]. Different subtypes of FTO influence your chance of putting on weight. The newspapers at the time (2007) had headlines like "Fat gene found". Interesting to see that adding it to potatoes makes them put on weight too. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646098 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646098
- inglor_cz 5y agoInterestingly, DNA methylation seems to be a good indicator of aging and possibly even play some active role in the aging process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_clock https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02638-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02638-w https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw211.html https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw211.html Epigenetics seems to be a field with some low-hanging fruit still available. Perhaps even significant "fruit" such as tissue regeneration in adult humans. But I do not want to speculate about validity of this particular result. Incidentally, both rice and potatoes spike my blood sugar a lot, so I only consume them infrequently. I wonder how many other people suffer from the same effect without knowing. And thus, what the overall effect of cheaper rice and potatoes on health of the population would be. (I am neither diabetic nor prediabetic and my normal fasting glucose is between 4.0 and 4.7 mmol/L, far into the healthy territory. Most other foods rarely spike it beyond 7.5. Rice can easily reach 11.)
- SuoDuanDao 5y agoI would guess that cheaper rice and potatoes would not have a great effect on the health of the population, since they're already consumed in vast quantities due to being the cheapest things available. Lack of them generally isn't what causes food cravings though, so being cheapest by a larger margin seems unlikely to shift behaviour by much. To share a personal anecdote on the subject: I consumed cheap carbohydrates mostly out of a sense of duty to my own pocketbook for the longest time, because I didn't believe someone with my rather voracious appetite could afford to eat just meat and vegetables. When I tried cutting out cheap carbs like rice and potatoes as an experiment, I found my appetite diminished and I consumed no more meat and vegetables than I had before.
- grepfru_it 5y agoThis thread seams to be missing the point... With cheaper rice and potatoes, more people in the world can avoid going hungry. The net result is a less impoverished global society.
- 5y ago
- aaron695 5y agoA tenth of what they claim would be Nobel prizing winning. But it has ties to Western Universities, it's not straight out fiction. [1] Not that it matters, but nutrients are claimed to be the same And it in theory works with many plants, think flowers, drugs, wood. Even their claim deeper roots would help with carbon sequestration. What would it do to a Sequoia? [1] https://news.uchicago.edu/story/rna-breakthrough-crops-grow-50-percent-more-potatoes-rice-climate-change https://news.uchicago.edu/story/rna-breakthrough-crops-grow-...
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoI am going to ask a noob question: if this change is beneficial to plants, why has it not occurred already by natural mutation? Evolution can be blind "hill-climbing", so if it's a step towards "local maximum", why has it not already been taken? Is it not a "local" step (i.e. hard to occur naturally) or not "towards maximum" (i.e. good for the farmer but not for the plant)
- whitepaint 5y agoMaybe not enough time has passed.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoThat's a soft restatement of 1: Is it not a "local" step
- freemint 5y agoI think demethylization would very much be a smooth direction of descent to produce more fruit. It's just that the production of more fruit is not beneficial.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoYes, the consensus seems to be for 2: this change is not seen in the wild as it not beneficial there. i.e. it is not towards in a wild plant's local maximum of producing most offspring given limited resources.
- mandmandam 5y agoPerhaps after a few generations there is damage that would otherwise have been protected; or maybe the unmethylated FTO protects from adverse weather / environmental conditions that are not normally present in greenhouses. Either of those could prove catastrophic, so I don't think yours is a noob question - unfortunately, I am also a noob.
- 5y ago
- the_other 5y agoWe don't need this. We don't have a productivity problem. We have problems transporting food; in organising food production; food waste; carbon abuse transporting food just because "it's cheaper to make it over there"; in food cultures that ignore seasonality etc.