Newly Risen from Yeast: THC

Except that marijuana seeds are effectively legal throughout the EU as long as they're not cultivated (ha).

If they really wanted to commercialize and control the sale of marijuana, they would legalize it.

They want to do what we do with all medication: Isolate the active agent and remove everything else.

This has several advantages: It makes dosing possible, as natural products can have vastly varying amounts of the active agent. You don't have to consider the effects of other active ingredients which might also come in varying amounts (this is especially true for cannabis, which contains several different active cannabinoids).

This is exactly what you want to do when you really want to use cannabis as a medicine instead of using the medical system as a trojan horse for full legalisation. It's similar to how you get pills with caffeine at the pharmacy and coffee at other places.

If you let cannabis plants or genetically modified yeasts generate the THC before you extract it doesn't matter. It's only a question of cost. You will get exactly the same extract that is in no way distinguishable. Most arguments against GMO don't apply for modified bacteria and yeasts in biotech - they're not viable to live outside of the lab.

Also it's pretty funny that you speak about organic and not commercial. Most cannabis is grown in hydroculture with chemical fertilizer and produced for a financial gain (other word for this is commercially).

> GMO THC

Well that's a new one, because THC isn't an "organism", nor is it "genetically modified".

That's gloriously tinfoil paranoid and saturated with meaningless buzzwords. The conspiracy, if there is one, is the ordinary conservative conspiracy against fun.

Yeast is a great vehicle for organic molecule production.

They can't do it;), my friend (Anson Parker) owns a patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090042974

"It is the ambition and intention of authors that tactical usage of this broad-sweeping technique may rapidly and at low cost satisfy a global demand in what may be termed a “grass-roots” bio-engineering project worthy of the 3rd Millennium; bringing to fruition micro-mass-productivity. "

And he still makes the news: http://www.c-ville.com/ansons-crawl-city-council-candidate-d...

Yes, the regulators want to. The people actually doing the research want to be able to focus on the components that are in marijuana, because some of the chemicals that are produced in small quantities seem to have substantial effects in certain conditions. A simpler organism, like yeast, means they can minimize the variables, and provide better research and better quality.

This is exactly why I have an issue with meal replacement (e.g. soylent) stuff being used in the long term, or reductionistic nutrition advice that considers food only as a source of protein, carbs, fat and fiber. The fact is, we're discovering a ton of compounds in a ton of foods that have unexpected effects and benefits, not to mention synergistic effects that happen only when multiple compounds are together. To pretend that we know how all of it works seems like hubris to me.

If you have the opportunity, go tour an Anheuser-Busch production facility. They are the perfect demonstration of operating on a massive scale with yeast, what ever you feel about their end product. Will this change the world? No. Will is make it possible to drastically reduce the cost of producing these compounds on an industrial scale? With what's described in the article? No, because it still requires specially prepared source chemicals.

"Still, it’s an enormous challenge to modify yeast to synthesize THC or cannabidiol from raw materials like sugar; the current strains in Dr. Kayser’s laboratory are capable of only the final stage of the synthesis. Ultimately, biochemists may need to insert more than a dozen genes into the yeast."

If they solve the above, then it will become interesting, and I'm sure they are rushing headlong to solve it.

There was a SF author (Bear or Brin?) who wrote an essay back in the 90's about the future of drug wars. Much of the enforcement back then was on stopping the import of drugs from overseas. But once gene splicing created a way to produce the drugs within the USA, the enforce would switch to raiding warehouses, etc. The next step would be when the technology reduced the drug manufacture to a table top box that could be in any home (think make your own insulin). Then the enforcement has to raid peoples homes. The last step is when the technology allows the drugs to be produced by symbionts growing within a person.

William Randolph Hearst spent a lot of time and money getting both marijuana and hemp criminalized in the early part of the last century. His motive was to change the way we produce paper (he owned lots of forests and wanted to move from hemp pulp to paper pulp). So, our laws criminalize a fibrous plant, not a psycho-active substance produced by one strain of that plat. Having yeast produce THC does an end run around our silly laws.

It makes sense when the plant is still illegal, while the yeast product is available as a drug for patients. This would be a real money maker, but I think the plant is still the better deal for patients and should be legal.

> I don't see how this is superior to having the plant itself create THC which is much simpler and cheaper.

The plant is simpler and cheaper now; this looks like it is in the early stages. The yeasts cannot make THC from just simple, readily available precursors like sugars, and the yields are low, according to the article. But imagine if this is improved. Suppose that THC yeast could be improved so that making large amounts of THC with yeast is as simple as making CO2 in a loaf of bread. Just feed sugars and watch it multiply, then collect the THC.

> how is this going to change the world

If a THC "super yeast" is developed, it will be hard for the authorities to control trafficking, for one thing.

> How the THC produced from yeast is any better or different than that produced from the plant.

THC is THC. It's a compound. If it looks like this molecule picture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol

it's THC, whether it came from camel's ear wax, or a cannabis plant.

I had the same reaction -- what's the practical value here that makes it news?

One possible clue is in this quote: "[Cannabidiol] production from plants is a bit complicated." This might turn out to be by far the best way to obtain pure cannabidiol (and other cannabinoids).

I suspect that the long-term goal is to demonstrate new chemical synthesis techniques of interest to the pharmaceutical industry. The choice of THC (& hydrocodone) as an endpoint might have been somewhat arbitrary.

Perhaps it can be generalized to compounds other than THC. Possibly even drugs that do not exist in nature.

Or maybe not, but we won't know until we start experimenting and exploring. If we knew exactly what would work in advance, it wouldn't be research.

It's about more than just THC. It's also about cannabidiol, cannabidivarin, tetrahydrocannabivarin and other substances that are also produced and much lower quantities. THC seems more like the proof of concept, with the lesser-known drugs being where this will really shine.

I assume - Easier to secure crops. Easier and more accurate to grow, less pesticides etc.

I'd imagine in a prison it'd be very valuable.

Great for home growers as well, I'd image easier and more accurate THC delivery.

Perhaps the process is both scalable and patentable.

Afaik sourdough does not contain any yeast but bacteria. The finally prepared bread dough may but is not required to contain yeast.

THC extraction is not unlike caffeine extraction, which is pretty easy with liquefied CO2. You could even do pharmacy-grade column extracts if you wanted to make it extra pure.

A mol of THC is worth a lot more than a mol of octane.

also consider that that octane is actually not the octane that you put into your car gas tank, ita's actually closer to a diesel. (linear alkanes vs. branched alkanes)

There's a difference between a chemical analogue and an alternative way of producing the same chemical.

Glucose is still glucose whether it comes from sugar cane, corn, beets, or other sources.

Erythritol.

Lead acetate...

sucralose?