4 ms·

Wow. 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 ago
How is removing (obfuscation!?) smth from the DNA not genetic modification?
- nwatson 5y ago
  In 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    Technically correct might be the best kind of correct, but i doubt it will change hearts and minds.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      It's enough to circumvent regulations for marking products as GMO.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        The 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.
        adrianN 5y ago
        Yeah, seems like a case for the lawyers.
  - Gravityloss 5y ago
    No, they are changing DNA, they are adding DNA code that does the demethylation of RNA. It's like adding code to the compiler so it produces different assembly from the same higher level code. But it's still added code because the compiler itself is in the codebase.
- apinstein 5y ago
  Because it’s epigenetics! No novel gene sequences are introduced. Just a change in what natural genes are expressed and at what levels.
  - amelius 5y ago
    How novel is the idea then?
  - mnw21cam 5y ago
    No. The FTO gene from humans was inserted into the genome of these plants. That gene produced a protein that performs RNA demethylation, which isn't even epigenetics, because epigenetics is the set of extra stuff that happens on DNA, not RNA.
    - apinstein 5y ago
      Oh my bad I didn’t read the full article. Of course, insertion of a gene to do demethylation would be genetic modification.
- tingletech 5y ago
  Methylation groups are considered meta-genetic I thought. Sort of like dog-earring a base pair. edit: epigenetic, not metagenetic
Scaevolus 5y ago
This 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 ago
  As long as it’s not round up ready or otherwise encourage more pesticid use I’m cool with it
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Or 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 ago
  I'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 ago
      Yeah 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!

wolfretcrap 5y ago

How is removing (obfuscation!?) smth from the DNA not genetic modification?

nwatson 5y ago
In 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Technically correct might be the best kind of correct, but i doubt it will change hearts and minds.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    It's enough to circumvent regulations for marking products as GMO.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      The 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.
      - adrianN 5y ago
        Yeah, seems like a case for the lawyers.
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  No, they are changing DNA, they are adding DNA code that does the demethylation of RNA. It's like adding code to the compiler so it produces different assembly from the same higher level code. But it's still added code because the compiler itself is in the codebase.
apinstein 5y ago
Because it’s epigenetics! No novel gene sequences are introduced. Just a change in what natural genes are expressed and at what levels.
- amelius 5y ago
  How novel is the idea then?
- mnw21cam 5y ago
  No. The FTO gene from humans was inserted into the genome of these plants. That gene produced a protein that performs RNA demethylation, which isn't even epigenetics, because epigenetics is the set of extra stuff that happens on DNA, not RNA.
  - apinstein 5y ago
    Oh my bad I didn’t read the full article. Of course, insertion of a gene to do demethylation would be genetic modification.
tingletech 5y ago
Methylation groups are considered meta-genetic I thought. Sort of like dog-earring a base pair. edit: epigenetic, not metagenetic

Scaevolus 5y ago

This 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 ago
As long as it’s not round up ready or otherwise encourage more pesticid use I’m cool with it
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Or 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 ago
I'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 ago
    Yeah 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!