GM Cannabis

[Sconesnatcher]

I saw that they managed to splice a tobacco plant with firefly genes and made a glow in the dark tobacco plant. Genetics is obviously advanced enough to do all sorts of mad modifications to plant genomes. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that introducing say oak tree genes to the cannabis plant genome may result in a cannabis tree?

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that you would have far better luck adding cannabis genes to an oak tree to make an oak tree that produces THC. I think our understanding of genes related to development are still rather lacking to do what you suggest (yet).

[GDG]

Mr. Skeptic has the right idea: it would probably be easier to clone the genes responsible for THC production into oaks, e.g., so that the THC was expressed in the leaves or acorns, rather than trying to get C. sativa to grow to oak-tree heights and support its own weight.

 

How about cloning it into popcorn? Gives you the munchies and satisfies it at the same time

[Shadow]

Might as well change the products of photosynthesis...

[cetus]

why would u want to grow larger amounts of cannabis if its illigle unless prescribed by a docter

the world already has enught dont try to make even more

think of the thousands of people addicted to cannabis

[iNow]

think of the thousands of people addicted to cannabis

 

Cannabis is not addictive in the traditional sense. It does not cause withdrawal symptoms. It is, however, addictive in the same way that pizza, exercise, and sex are. It feels good, so we tend to want to do it more. However, it's nothing like cigarettes, alcohol, or heroine, so don't believe the hype.

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, it's really not anywhere near as bad as you've probably been taught in school. They think they need to lie to you (or at least greatly exaggerate) for your own good. Obviously, I disagree. That's not to say that it's harmless, though, and I wouldn't want you to take this as an invitation to try it. Aside from being illegal, it is bad for you, just nowhere near as bad as something like heroine or other "hard drugs." In fact, it's not even as bad as alcohol, which is a good comparison: most adults are able to drink alcohol moderately and get enjoyment out of it with no real problems, but some let it ruin their lives.

[cetus]

yere schools say if you take it than you will ether be in jail beat up in a hospital or lying in a gutter dead because you took it

talk about exaggerating

i know because my little brother had to ask me about it and had nightmares for weeks

[Moontanman]

yere schools say if you take it than you will ether be in jail beat up in a hospital or lying in a gutter dead because you took it

talk about exaggerating

i know because my little brother had to ask me about it and had nightmares for weeks

 

The worst effects of pot use are indeed jail or being robbed and beat up by a dishonest dealer and ending up in the hospital. None of these things is due to pot but to the effects of the laws making it illegal!

[cetus]

i konw thats what i said u wont die from atully taking pot

[Moontanman]

Back to the OT. I've seen ployploid Cannabis plants that were 4" thick at the base and almost 20 feet tall, almost trees !

[Sconesnatcher]

Mr. Skeptic has the right idea: it would probably be easier to clone the genes responsible for THC production into oaks, e.g., so that the THC was expressed in the leaves or acorns, rather than trying to get C. sativa to grow to oak-tree heights and support its own weight.

 

How about cloning it into popcorn? Gives you the munchies and satisfies it at the same time

 

Didn't think of that but yeah that would be the more sensible approach. They could even kick it up a notch and introduce the THC gene to living organisms. If your running low you just clip off some of your armpit hair and load the bong.

 

cetus: I'm not even going to reply to your ignorance.

 

Moontanman: Words of wisdom.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

yere schools say if you take it than you will ether be in jail beat up in a hospital or lying in a gutter dead because you took it

talk about exaggerating

i know because my little brother had to ask me about it and had nightmares for weeks

 

In school they told me that you smoke a joint and you'll be hallucinating heavily and you might see a big fuzzy green monster coming to hug you but its actually the bus. That made me wanna smoke the stuff but unfortunately I've yet to see this big fuzzy green monster. I don't smoke the stuff anymore though I just think that if cannabis grew on trees the world would be a much better place. Its a more effective painkiller than morphine in my opinion. I was prescribed dilaudid after an operation once and it did NOTHING. Not a ****in thing. One joint and all the pain miraculously disappeared. Ho ho ho.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Back to the OT. I've seen ployploid Cannabis plants that were 4" thick at the base and almost 20 feet tall, almost trees !

 

Holy mother of christ on a tricycle. 4" thick? That'd be quite the spectacle. I was in Jamaica years ago and the guesthouse I was staying in the lad had a cannabis BUSH growing out the back garden. I swear to god it was a bush. I got a picture of it and all.

[Sisyphus]

Didn't think of that but yeah that would be the more sensible approach. They could even kick it up a notch and introduce the THC gene to living organisms. If your running low you just clip off some of your armpit hair and load the bong.

 

First of all, gross. More importantly, if you GE yourself to produce THC in such quantities, I'm thinking you're going to have all sorts of problems, medically. And if was already in your body in such quantities, what effect could breathing in some more of it have? And finally, if you think that's remotely a good idea, then you, my friend, have a drug problem.

[Sconesnatcher]

i konw thats what i said u wont die from atully taking pot

 

If you smoked enough of it you could. People have died from drinking too much water. Water toxicosis. Look it up

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

First of all, gross. More importantly, if you GE yourself to produce THC in such quantities, I'm thinking you're going to have all sorts of problems, medically. And if was already in your body in such quantities, what effect could breathing in some more of it have? And finally, if you think that's remotely a good idea, then you, my friend, have a drug problem.

 

If it was just a byproduct of your armpit hairs then it wouldn't enter the bloodstream under ordinary circumstances. I don't know how hair works though so my theory probably doesn't make sense. I never said it would be a good idea. Just a possibility.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Sconesnatcher
Consecutive posts merged.

[Phi for All]

Let's stay focused here (admittedly difficult considering the topic). If you're talking about modifying for cannabis traits, why would you want a tree where the leaves are hard to reach? Or where most of the energy goes into the woodiest part of the plant?

 

To genetically modify cannabis, first start with either removing undesirable traits or enhancing desirable ones. Then you can figure out what genes you want to use.

[Moontanman]

If you smoked enough of it you could. People have died from drinking too much water. Water toxicosis. Look it up

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

If it was just a byproduct of your armpit hairs then it wouldn't enter the bloodstream under ordinary circumstances. I don't know how hair works though so my theory probably doesn't make sense. I never said it would be a good idea. Just a possibility.

 

Scone, no one has ever died from eating or smoking too much pot, non one has ever found a level toxic enough to kill, you eat enough and it is a less than desirable experience but not death.

 

Polyploid I think thats the word, they manipulated the seeds with teratogenic chemicals to change their genetic makeup it grew under ideal conditions as inside a greenhouse but it was 20' tall and 4" thick. If it had been outside the wind would probably have destroyed it was weak despite is size.

[cetus]

by changing the traits you could end up with a small bush with a hard wooded stem.

you dont know the changes you could make

[Phi for All]

by changing the traits you could end up with a small bush with a hard wooded stem.

you dont know the changes you could make

Are you familiar with genetic engineering, or the scientific method? It's not exactly a blindfolded, roll-the-dice approach, you know.

[CharonY]

Well, but he has got a point there. It is one thing to introduce the production of a specific protein, but another to change a complex trait. Even on the cell level the results can be unexpected.

[cetus]

thats what i was talking about

changing cells can always end in a unexpected way

so its sort of roll a dice and see what you get

just more complicated

[CharonY]

Not always, of course. But for complex traits for which the pathways and interactions have not been completely elucidated yet (=the vast majority), then the results are often hard to predict.

[cetus]

yere the more complex the trait the more unexpected results mkght happen like trying to mess with a humans brain u could kill what your experimenting on

[Phi for All]

Well, but he has got a point there. It is one thing to introduce the production of a specific protein, but another to change a complex trait. Even on the cell level the results can be unexpected.

"Unexpected results" is not "you dont know the changes you could make". While certainty is not a certainty, from what I've read, genetic engineering is NOT a total roll of the dice.

 

thats what i was talking about

changing cells can always end in a unexpected way

so its sort of roll a dice and see what you get

just more complicated

I disagree. I feel "changing cells can always end in a unexpected way" is too generalized a statement. It does not "always" end in an unpredicted outcome.

 

Not always, of course. But for complex traits for which the pathways and interactions have not been completely elucidated yet (=the vast majority), then the results are often hard to predict.

It was my understanding that genetic engineering is *usually* done in smaller, less complicated, more easily predictable steps.

[cetus]

yere that makes more sense then it will work and it wont work

and i ment that i has a chance of having diffrent results not it will always be diffrent

[CharonY]

It was my understanding that genetic engineering is *usually* done in smaller, less complicated, more easily predictable steps.

 

Yes of course, hence my limitation to complex traits. You can only predict with a given accuracy if you know in which pathway(s) the manipulation will interfere. If you see some recent high-profile examples in the press it tends to be very simple things, like glowing pigs, for instance (introducing a foreign protein that is not suspected to interfere with anything). However in many cases the roll of a die approach (as you call it) is also done. For instance in cases of genes with unknown function. Mind you, this is mostly done in simple systems as e.g. bacteria or yeast. One would then simply screen the mutants whether one sees an effect in which one may be interested in (and discard the majority which shows unexplainable results or results that are of no interest for the screen). Again, the overall possible change due to genetic manipulation is, of course, depending on the pathway(s) that you interfere with. The main problem is that often the pathway(s) are not known a priori, or only a part is known. This is one of the reasons why it is very hard to create superperforming bacteria. If these manipulations would result in predictable results our production capabilities with genetically engineered organism would be much higher. Especially if one considers that most involve very well known pathways. However the truth is that the majority of high-performers (that I am aware of) were actually acquired by other screening wild-type strains or by random mutation and selection (i.e. non-directed manipulations). In other words our knowledgebase for directed genetic engineering is overall still low and it is clear that more accurate predictive models are needed to simulate interactions. This is one of the reasons of the rise of bioinformatics.