Genetic Modification of Cannabis

[Ganico]

It's a trip how anytime there's a serious discussion online, multiple people pop out of the woodwork as "experts" in whatever "field" the discussion is on. ANYTHING, could be a discussion on aliens and 19 people are gonna claim they worked at area 51,the pentagon,etc and have degrees in alien thermophysics, "but dude it's just like classified"

Anyway, who the fuck mentioned hippies? Why do you people equate not agreeing with genetc engineering with hippy idealism? Cause I ain't no damn hippie, haha. It'd be a safe bet to assume most everyone here is more hippyish than myself, and that most who even mentioned "hippies" in the first place probably smoke out of mainly bongs and listen to rock music and wear tiny t-shirts, that's pretty damn hippyish in comparison; if you ask me.

I just don't believe in fucking around with nature like that. Y'all are just a bunch of halbaked Dr. Moreau's

 

[Ganico]

What's the best cure that we have for a common cold? Orange juice and chicken soup? I mean, seriously. The last thing we need to do is start fucking around with modifying genes in a lab.

 

[stashsecrets]

It's a trip how anytime there's a serious discussion online, multiple people pop out of the woodwork as "experts" in whatever "field" the discussion is on. ANYTHING, could be a discussion on aliens and 19 people are gonna claim they worked at area 51,the pentagon,etc and have degrees in alien thermophysics, "but dude it's just like classified"

I just don't believe in fucking around with nature like that. Y'all are just a bunch of halbaked Dr. Moreau's

Great points. Lmmfao @ "halfbaked dr. moreaus."




P.S I prefer hippy women, seems most prefer the 12 year old boy look these days.

 

[- ezra -]

Here is a brief definition from a Wiki article

Here is a brief definition from a Wiki article

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using techniques in genetics generally known as recombinant DNA technology. Recombinant DNA technology is the ability to combine DNA molecules from different sources into the one molecule in a test tube. Thus, the abilities or the phenotype of the organism, or the proteins it produces, can be altered through the modification of its genes.

The term generally does not cover organisms whose genetic makeup has been altered by conventional cross breeding or by "mutagenesis" breeding, as these methods predate the discovery of the recombinant DNA techniques. Technically speaking, however, such techniques are, by definition, genetic modification.

Examples of GMOs are diverse, and include transgenic experimental animals such as mice, several fish species, transgenic plants, or various microscopic organisms altered for the purposes of genetic research or for the production of pharmaceuticals. One of the latest examples of this technology is the development of transgenic chickens that will deposit pharmaceutical products in the egg white, using the ovalbumin promoter linked, in this case, to a human sequence antibody cassette (where the light and heavy chain variable regions are introduced in a human kappa(?) constant region background) The term "genetically modified organism" does not necessarily imply, but does include, transgenic substitution of genes from another species, and research is actively being conducted in this field. For example, genes for fluorescent proteins can be co-expressed with complex proteins in cultured cells to facilitate study by biologists, and modified organisms are used in researching the mechanisms of cancer and other diseases.

There is a lot of emphasis places on transgenic methods because they are the most interesting and advanced and perhaps unusual and definately more controvertial types of genetic manipulation. I think that the emphasis placed on transgenisis might be a little disproportionate. I was under the impression that a relatively large part of genetic engineering does not involve transgenesis. (anyone is welcome to correct me on this).

- Ez

 

[guineapig]

I have some info which will help this discussion.....

As far as I can tell, there has been no documented proof of genetically-modified cannabis strains, either in the academic literature (e.g. Univ of Mississippi) or the private sector (e.g. GW Pharmaceuticals and HortaPharm). These institutions have undoubtedly used biochemical and chromosomal assays to identify and characterize different strains, but never have used genomic technology to make a better Cannabis plant.....

This being said, however, researchers in Japan were able to introduce the THC "bio-machinery" into a completely different species, in this case the Tobacco Plant. The researchers introduced the THC enzyme cascade (possibly via plasmid vectors) into the Tobacco plant such that when they added a solution of CBC (one of the precursors to THC) to the Tobacco plant's roots, the Tobacco plant began to exude THC out from its leaves. But without the artificial injection of CBC, no THC could possibly be produced....

Now this does not mean that there will never be a GMO Cannabis Strain.

One of the first steps in doing this would be to identify the genes which are responsible for controlling trichome production. These genes have already been identified in other strains such as arabadopsis thaliana (mustard plant) and Zea Mays (corn plant) so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find this gene in Cannabis. Perhaps a "knockout mutant" could be created which did not express trichomes at all (OH NO PERISH THAT THOUGHT lol) and then compare that mutant to the normal cannabis in order to identify the genes controlling trichomes. We would then try to over-express these Trichome genes and hopefully arrive at a final Cannabis plant which would be absolutely jammed with trichomes or have super-swollen trichome heads, for example.....

Another avenue to explore is the bio-chemical pathway of cannibinoids such as THC, CBN, CBGN and THCV. To alter this pathway so as to over-express THC would be difficult indeed. Scientists have so far only succeeded in copying the THC production mechanism and transfering it into Tobacco Plants via transgenic techniques. The genetics of this pathway are awfully complex and much more research is needed to understand its genetic foundations.....

Let me end with something that might suprise you: Scientists know way more about the genetics of animals than they do about the genetics of plants. They don't even know how a plant's sex is determined, for example!!! Plant sex is some sort of inter-play between the environment and around 20 or so genes (for Zea Mays- corn plants) or so they think.

We'll see what the future holds......

kind regards from a guineapig

 

[zamalito]

First off to say that someone who is against introducing gm plants into the wild is also against stem cell research and gay marriah is an insult. You just called me a bigot because I disagree with you. When we refer to gm as a shortcut I wasn't saying it was a shortcut to standard breeding practices I was referring to it as a shortcut to genome mapping and seed screening through genetic testing.

I feel there's a general misunderstanding of the function of dna. Often to simplify we explain dna as a linear sequence of traits. Using this model logic dictates that traits can be cut and pasted producing the desired result. However using this model to explain how dna functions is like using the neils bohr atomic model to explain heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Two books I feel are great for illustrating the function of dna are shroedinger's "what is life" which is the book that started the search for dna and halle's "out of chaos" which started the study of complexity theory. A more accurate modelwould be a type of neural network that seeks an ever refining complexity but thrives on simplicity. Dna has a behavior which seeks to form a population that in and of itself is a new entity with its own behavior which seeks to form a population that in and of itself is new entity with its own behavior and so on. As the code for the behaviros of this neural network refine themselves to create larger scale of populations with their own behavior. An example of this would be how a cell has its own behavior a tissue is a group of cells with its own behavior and organ is a group of different tissue with a new behavior an organism is is a collection of organs with its own behavior a population is a group of organisms that form a new entity with a distinct behavior etc. The logic set behind anything which produces an emergent behavior of this sort isn't condudive to the kind of cut and paste understanding of gm. This is just a matter of seeing what all specimen with this trait have in common and then just cut and paste what these have in common. Since this technique isn't really compatible with the instruction set of a neural network many unforseen problems in the expression of this dna may arise.

None of the catastrophes mentioned by daytripper were made up. Everyone of you know that gm has caused serious calamatous problems in the past yet you see it as harmless and even beneficial. Why is that? Someone mentioned that technology has helped crop yields but noone mentions that every almost technology that has helped crop yields with the exception of farm machinery is currently being done by stone age amazonian civilizations and that crop yields per acre have actually decreased over the past 50 years. We can go into whether or not HIV was caused by vaccine technology gone awry or the frequency of skin and lung cancer from a toxic environment or how people in many parts of the world have it worse than they've ever had it and have felt the bad side of our technology but that is off topic.

 

[pipeline]

Good post Guinea Pig!


The regulation of genes which code for enzymes that catylize reactions in cannabinoid synthesis pathways could be altered to create specific cannabiniod profiles. The promoters could be changed to alter when, where, and to what extent the genes for these enzymes are expressed, changing when, where on the plant, and in what concentration these enzymes are produced, changing the potency and ratios of the cannabinoids.

Some other helpful things that could be inserted/improved:
-Anti-freeze protein
-Heat Stress proteins
-Number of resin glands per trichome (What if each trich was covered with glands?)
-Size of trichomes
-Mold/disease resistance
-Insect resistance ( Aint smokin no BT toxins though...)
-Drought stress tolerance

For hemp:
-Lignin composition in cell walls (Allow cellulose fibers in cell wall to be more easily separated for fermentation into ethanol fuel)
-Increase yield of fiber per acre
-Increase seed oil concentration
-Improve nutrition in seed

 

[Guest]

..........so could cannabis be modified to treat specific medical conditions?

 

[Tirs]

A more accurate modelwould be a type of neural network that seeks an ever refining complexity but thrives on simplicity. Dna has a behavior which seeks to form a population that in and of itself is a new entity with its own behavior which seeks to form a population that in and of itself is new entity with its own behavior and so on. As the code for the behaviros of this neural network refine themselves to create larger scale of populations with their own behavior. An example of this would be how a cell has its own behavior a tissue is a group of cells with its own behavior and organ is a group of different tissue with a new behavior an organism is is a collection of organs with its own behavior a population is a group of organisms that form a new entity with a distinct behavior etc. The logic set behind anything which produces an emergent behavior of this sort isn't condudive to the kind of cut and paste understanding of gm. This is just a matter of seeing what all specimen with this trait have in common and then just cut and paste what these have in common. Since this technique isn't really compatible with the instruction set of a neural network many unforseen problems in the expression of this dna may arise.

I think you are misinterpreting that approach to biology. The reason that DNA seems to exhibit a tendency to form increasingly complex networks is because these ultimately allow greater adaptability leading to higher survival and therefore are expressed more. In and of itself DNAs function is only a series of simple chemical reactions, nucleotides covalently bonding, there is no neural network or behavioral drive in DNA. Is there any behavior in when molecules come together to form rocks? No its just chemistry. Look at E.Coli it has 4,000 genes but only 300 of those are essential to its survival. They exist because they're there, but at the same time do nothing to impede or aid the organism but continue to exist because there is no refinement, no behavior only a chemical reaction that dictates they be there. I'm sure you're familiar with mutations in DNA and how that can lead to favorable traits, some of these simply happen to be the tendency to form increasingly complex systems there is however no behavior just dumb luck.

What looking at things as increasingly complex systems does illustrate the however is the very simplicity you are arguing against. Look at the cascading nature of complex systems, the modification of one gene can produce cascading effects that result in dramatic failure of the entire organism. Sickle cell anemia for example is caused by the substitution of only one nucleotide on a single gene but its effects are profound within all systems of an organism.

Put another way the complexity of the higher levels are still subject to the principles of the simplicity of the lower levels. That is why 'cut and paste' GE as you call it is logical. Not only that but non-transgenic GE poses little threat. Assuming a cultivar of cannabis is modified and released in the wild as would be inevitable. It would pose to cause minimal if any damage to the environment because it is still subject to the laws of natural selection. Assume both scenarios of GE done with a 'bad' naturally occurring gene and a 'good' naturally occurring gene. If the gene is 'good' it would spread regardless of human interaction since its already present and if its 'bad' forces of natural selection would cull these plants that display it naturally or through GE. Non-transgenic GE is simply the means to accelerate the practice of traditional breeding since it isn't introducing any foreign genes only forcing the display of naturally favorable ones that would occur overtime anyway. Don't underestimate the power of natural selection, many potent new world drug strains are descended from hemp seeds spread by European explorers (rope). A cultivar exhibiting non-transgenic genes would be subject to those same forces.

With that out of the way what other problems? GE strains being patented, again thats a problem with the law.
The plight of the farmer? Thats economics, a recurring theme since the industrial revolution, the agrarian population continually declines as its replaced with technology, this in turn frees more labor capital for new sectors making society in turn more productive and spurs the development of further technology. Sure a few farmers get put out of work but remember the famines of the middle ages, a lot more farmers back then weren't huh? Technology allows more people to eat everyday but technology isn't responsible if some outside force like greed gets in the way.

Another one I remember is people living too long and over-population. Well killing people off faster doesn't do jack for that. People lived an average of 30 years some centuries back and still reproduced just fine. In fact the only thing that slows the reproduction rate is 1. literacy and 2. a higher proportion of people reaching old age. This is why the West has the lowest birth rate currently and third world nations the highest.

What else is there toxic wastes and other dark sides of technology? Fact is we live longer today than ever before thanks tooooooooooooo technology! Sure everything can be misused but that shouldn't scare people away. GE can definitely become one of man's greatest tools in the fight against disease, famine and any other number of things.

EDIT: feel free to correct me if anyone actually takes the time to read that haha. I by no means claim to be an expert just please no insults that accomplishes little.

 

[pipeline]

Yes, by modifying the genes coding for enzymes which catalyze and regulate reactions in cannabinoid synthesis pathways, the cannabinoid composition could be changed.

 

[Tirs]

Some other helpful things that could be inserted/improved:
-Anti-freeze protein
-Heat Stress proteins
-Number of resin glands per trichome (What if each trich was covered with glands?)
-Size of trichomes
-Mold/disease resistance
-Insect resistance ( Aint smokin no BT toxins though...)
-Drought stress tolerance

For hemp:
-Lignin composition in cell walls (Allow cellulose fibers in cell wall to be more easily separated for fermentation into ethanol fuel)
-Increase yield of fiber per acre
-Increase seed oil concentration
-Improve nutrition in seed

thats a good list pipeline, that goes to illustrate that not even cannabis is perfect and traditional breeding is a slow process that has yet to meet all its goals.

EDIT: let me add one thing despite the occasional bickering I think this thread so far has been a good debate, keep the info and opinions coming

 

[zamalito]

So you guys are against transgenic gm, now? The problem is to do non-transgenic gm you have to map the genome, and if you're mapping the genome, why not make it public domain? I promise you. If the entire cannabis genome is made public domain then no company will touch non-trangenic gm cannabis, because they cannot patent their work. If genome mapping and seed screening became the standard practice instead of gm then this would encourage preservation of the genepool and landrace cannabis. How can this be a bad thing as opposed to whatever the next terminator seed type problem that occurs? Noone has explained why non-transgenic gm is better than genome mapping.

I think you are confusing intent with behavior because first of all compounds don't have intent but the definitely do have a behavior, all compounds and atoms are is a magnetic behavior. If you were to stack every proton neutron and electron in the planet together you wouldn't even be able to see it. Do a google search of "emergent behavior" and dna or "emergent behavior " and "molecular interaction" you will see if anything has a behavior its especially chemicals. If chemicals didn't have a predictable behavior we definitely wouldn't exist. If chemicals didn't have a behavior organic chemistry would be pointless because it would all be random and you couldn't have any predictable result to a reaction.

 

[zamalito]

Also increasingly complex organisms are not more succesful than simple organisms. Bacteria and fungi are definintely more succesful than sharks.

 

[pipeline]

"The problem is to do non-transgenic gm you have to map the genome"

Thats not necessarily true.

Genes can be studied by chemically mutigenizing cells grown in cell culture, screening for individuals with a single gene silenced, and studying what effects that has. The function of these genes can be found out this way, and then the genes and/or their regulating parts can be manipulated to improve the individual, all without mapping the entire genome.

 

[Tirs]

Merriam-Webster's Medical Desk Dictionary
Main Entry: be·hav·ior
Variant: or chiefly British be·hav·iour /bi-'hA-vy&r/
Function: noun
1 : the manner of conducting oneself
2 a : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation b : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment

Now I believe we're arguing semantics, behavior isn't the right word to use in biology because it implies a unconscious or conscious reaction on the part of the individual to a stimuli. My point with DNA is there is no unconscious or conscious reaction it just exists as a chemical reaction.

Also increasingly complex organisms are not more succesful than simple organisms. Bacteria and fungi are definintely more succesful than sharks.

I didn't say that increasingly complex organisms were more successful, I said it leads to a greater adaptability which can lead to increasing success. This much is evident and there is no other way to explain the increasing complexity of evolution. E.Coli that display increasing complexity in allowing for drug resistance to develop are more adaptable and therefore more successful.

 

[mriko]

Cannabis (or any other plant anyway) doesn't need any genetic engineering or so called "improvement". Show me a GM Cannabis field and I'll destroy it with great joy and delight

genetic modification (oh wait! cause that's exactly what selective breeding is isn't it)

absolutely not, when doing selective breeding you don't add a foreign gene to the plant in order to add a new property/feature. Selective ingeneering aims at favorising the expression of some genes already present in the plant genepool.

Human have always altered nature in a way to fit (*) their needs with the technology they have

yup, but only through selecting favorables traits. there was no modification of the gene pool through introduction of foreign gene.

i'm all for supporting local farmers too

Good, let's make hemp and psychoactive cannabis fully legal, farmers won't even think about growing anything GM.

Some other helpful things that could be inserted/improved:
-Anti-freeze protein
-Heat Stress proteins
-Number of resin glands per trichome (What if each trich was covered with glands?)
-Size of trichomes
-Mold/disease resistance
-Insect resistance ( Aint smokin no BT toxins though...)
-Drought stress tolerance

Plants able to face drought and temps more than 50°C or like minus 10°C already exist. you can select and add through simple hybridizing. Same with insect and mold problems, some strains are better than others at this. just find'em select, breed, cross.

-Increase yield of fiber per acre
-Increase seed oil concentration
-Improve nutrition in seed

Same, all that can be done through selection

........so could cannabis be modified to treat specific medical conditions?

We know only about a fraction about cannabis therapeutic potential, so why thinking about modifying something you don't even know everything about.

thats a good list pipeline, that goes to illustrate that not even cannabis is perfect and traditional breeding is a slow process that has yet to meet all its goals.

sorry not a good list, most of it you can already find in natural cannabis.
Nothing is perfect (most especially human-created things), but cannabis is most certainly the closest to some perfection. It has managed to conquer most of ecosystems around the world except for poles and very high altitudes.

Cannabis is all purpose plant, you can feed yourself (both stomach and mind/soul), built your house, make your cloth, get medicine out of it and I'm not talking about the whole industrial/chemical uses of it. Damn, we're using it to such a low level that we should first preoccupy to use it to its full NATURAL potential than thinking about changing it or making it "better". yuck !

Irie !

 

[pipeline]

Noone is saying this NEEDS to be done, but it could lead to more environmentally friendly and economical methods than what we use now.

An example from my above post: -Lignin composition in cell walls (Allow cellulose fibers in cell wall to be more easily separated for fermentation into ethanol fuel)

As of now, for fiber production in trees/hemp, harsh chemicals are needed to dissolve and loosen the lignin in cell walls to allow the cellulose to be separated.Lignin is the resinous "glue" of cell walls holding the cellulose fibers and everything together.

If we could alter the genes and/or their regulating constituants that code for and/or regulate enzymes that catalyze reactions in lignin biosynthesis pathways, we could alter the activity of these enzymes and in turn alter the pathways and ultimately the ratios of different types of lignin in the cell walls. This would make it easier and more environmentally friendly to isolate the cellulose from cell walls.

Doesn't need to be done, but it would help yield more cellulose per acre because these chemicals that are used now to dissolve lignin somewhat damage cellulose. More cellulose per acre means more gallons of ethanol yield per acre when its fermented. Increasing the productivity of farming, we've been on that game for quite some time, why stop when we're just getting started?

Sure there is the possiblity of harm, but used responsibly and carefully, genetic modification can have some real benefits for society.

Chimera-renee giving birth

 

[Chimera]

I worked for years in a molecular genetics lab, and I've never heard the term "alien gene"- sounds like something the Media would use. I wouldn't consider it an accepted academic term, mind you. Transgene, inserted construct, or transgenic construct perhaps?


Corporate GM of cannabis has not occured to my knowledge, however academic GM of cannabis (hemp) has been a fait de complit for a few years at least.... we discussed ad nauseum a few years back on OG, with much the same result.

I personally think GM technologies (ie- GE) have an enourmous potential. I'm not against GM technologes wrt cannabis, IMO they have alot to offer if done responsibly.

Biotechnology is not an evil science, although from the way it scares some folks, you would swear that it is.

IMHO the real problem are the corporations who use GM technologies to their own end.... GM has always been marketed to the populace as a means of improving products (crops) to the benefit of the end user, or farmer. However, to this pojnt the only real people benefiting from commercial GM crops are those producing them; the corporations. People need to learn to tease apart the science and techniques that agri-corps use, and the intent and goals of those corporations themselves.

I personally think it's silly to ignore the enourmous potential GM cannabis can offer both farmers and consumers, donerectly.

GM technologies in the hands of the greedy or ignorant, without suitable fail-safe measures, does pose a threat to the cannabis genepool. However, I also think this threat is much less real than the danger posed to the genepool by seed-hack-for-dollar mentality that is pervasively held by the vast majority of jokers in the industry today.

-Chimera


PS- Zamalito genome mapping and GM techniques such as transgenics are mutally exclusive.... you don't need one to do the other. However, having a fully mapped genome and an understanding of the genes within that genome does make GM technologies much easier- ie less time consuming.

 

[Chimera]

Hey pipeline, that's my pic!

 

[pipeline]

Hey Chimera, very well put there! I know thats your shot, and a damn good one at that. I've posted it before and have given you credit, but I guess I forgot to include it this time. Sorry about that.