Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Genome of Your Thanksgiving Supper

Posted by samzenpus on from the ACGT-good dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Here's a fact you can distract your family with over the Thanksgiving table: many of the major ingredients in Thanksgiving foods have had their genomes sequenced. Biomedical researchers are interested in the turkey genome due to the animal's susceptibility to cancer; botanists are studying the genome of the Chinese chestnut to search for the root of its resistance to chestnut blight; and corn — well, corn's genome is just cool."

25 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. pray for a cure for caner! by mug+funky · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1. not american, don't get thanksgiving (turkey at christmas instead)
    2. wtf is caner? i hope those poor turkeys are alright!

    1. Re:pray for a cure for caner! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Caner is a Turkish name.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caner

      Turkey.. Turkish.. You don't need genomes to see that connection!

    2. Re:pray for a cure for caner! by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Funny

      2. wtf is caner? i hope those poor turkeys are alright!

      Caner is cancer for domesticated turkeys. Domesticated turkeys, being unearthly stupid, don't know how to spell "cancer" properly.

      Sadly, they're not alright, their goose is cooked so to speak. And by goose, I mean themselves.

  2. No, corn is not cool by Grapplebeam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Corn is probably the biggest example of bullshit monopolies in action ever. Monsanto has all the corn. All of it. And they try to get corn to be used in everything, even though it's a waste and irresponsible to have any industry depend on one crop, much less plastics and foodstuffs, which are huge industries in and of themselves. So no, corn is not awesome. Also, corn syrup is worse for you than cane sugar, but those idiotic attack ads against people that dare state that implies we're all idiots for even daring to THINK about how corn could be worse than sugar. Seriously, if you haven't seen those commercials, they go like this: Party 1: Corn syrup is bad for you! Party 2: Well how do you know that? Corn comes out of the ground, it MUST be natural! Party 1: Uh, I think I read it in a book... Party 2 then begs the question that things that come out of the ground it must be natural and therefore better, AGAIN, and then implies anyone against corn syrup is a retard. Seriously, go look it up. It's actually offensive.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree.
    1. Re:No, corn is not cool by grub · · Score: 2, Informative


      There's some lobbying underway in the US to change the name of "high fructose corn syrup" to "corn sugar".

      That's how bad a rap HFCS has, calling it "sugar" is an improvement.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:No, corn is not cool by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      None of which has any impact on the fact that the corn genome is indeed rather cool.
      Seriously, go look it up. It's actually awesome.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    3. Re:No, corn is not cool by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Corn is probably the biggest example of bullshit monopolies in action ever. Monsanto has all the corn. All of it.

      That's odd. My grandparents grow corn. How does Monsanto have that corn?

    4. Re:No, corn is not cool by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) No they don't.

      2) Considering Corn one crop shows your completely ignorant of the industry
      3) No, corn syrup is not worse the can sugar. Please stop spreading that lie. You do know that when you say that you're in the same category as people who don't think we went to the moon, right? Yeah, I've seen those commercial, and base on the HFCS conspiracy nuts, it's well deserved.

      4) Yes, the natural fallacy is offensive. I wish they hadn't done that. However, the people who are spreading that lie are often the same people who use that same fallacy to show why one thing is 'better' for you. So I understand why they used it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:No, corn is not cool by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do your grandparents spray anhydrous ammonia all over their little garden? That stuff they grow is something called "Sweet Delicious Corn", which can probably be eaten on the cob and isn't real, honest, Monsanto corn.

    6. Re:No, corn is not cool by jestill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow dude. You need to get on your meds. The corn genome is quite cool.

      --
      "Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" -- Homer
    7. Re:No, corn is not cool by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wouldn't really call it a lie. The jury's still out on that one. Yes, I'm linking to Wikipedia. There are sources cited, look them up if you feel so inclined.

      More thorough studies need to be done with larger sample sizes but from what I've read I do believe that the prevalence of HFCS over sugar in our food supply is one of the many contributing factors to our modern obesity epidemic.

      Part of it is that, pound-for-pound, HFCS has a higher fructose content that normal table sugar. It's not much, but that little bit adds up. Moreover, HFCS is really, really cheap and so it's put in goddamned near everything. Remember when mum said too many sweets are bad for you? Well now everything is a damn sweet.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    8. Re:No, corn is not cool by mibe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf

      Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose.

      So there's some evidence that it's worse for you than an equivalent caloric amount of sucrose (table sugar), rather than being "all the same" as we've been hearing for quite some time. You can sort of justify these results biochemically if you like (the authors do it in their discussion), since sucrose needs one more metabolic step to be broken down than does HFCS, but there are lots of other factors I'm not entirely educated about. Anyway, read the paper. I was on the "HFCS is all good!" bandwagon until I learned a bit more, and now it looks like I was wrong.

    9. Re:No, corn is not cool by HBI · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are being mildly inaccurate. The problem isn't with corn syrup per se, it is with high fructose corn syrup - HFCS.

      Normal corn syrup is laden with dextrose - glucose. HFCS has a portion of that dextrose converted to fructose. HFCS 42 - 42% fructose - is close to table sugar/sucrose sweetness so it is frequently used. Fructose has some interesting qualities compared to glucose or dextrose:

      1) It is metabolized in the liver, rather than delivered to the individual cells, unlike glucose.
      2) Its fructolysis metabolic pathway ends up producing either glycogen or palmitate, ie, either 'stored energy' up to the ~ 3000 calorie limit, or fat deposits.
      3) Its metabolism is not regulated by insulin, unlike glucose.

      Fructose metabolism has more resemblance to the uptake of starches, rather than monosaccharide glucose. Increasing the monosaccharide fructose intake of humans was a grand experiment in making people fat, in other words.

      For that matter, the reputation of Americans as flatulent could easily have something to do with fructose malabsorption, since nearly every food has free fructose in it nowadays.

      That said, sucrose isn't a winner either as it is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose which is (partially) cloven apart in the stomach and then absorbed as separate monosaccharides. The glucose is fine as far as that goes, as it is insulin regulated, but the fructose within has the same problem as HFCS. For that matter, might as well call sucrose HFCS 50, with the slight caveat that a portion of the sucrose will not be metabolized, possibly reducing uptake of fructose in comparison to HFCS, which has its fructose already in monosaccharide form.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    10. Re:No, corn is not cool by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm familiar with the wikipedia article, and it's links. I have also read many studies, analysis and meta studies. It's become the classic 'You can't prove it's not true, there fore more study is needed' gambit. As used by Homeopaths, Moon landing hoaxers, and ghost hunters.

      Th reason we have an obesity issue(not epidemic) is due to the availability of easy calories, and being inundated with ads telling use to eat. Nothing more. Corn Sugar isn't magic. You eat 1000 calories of HFCS* you have 1000 calories. You exercise and burn 1000 calories, you loose a 1000 calories.

      In fact, you get LESS calories using Corn Sugar because less is required to achieve the same sweetness.
      It would be a more rational argument to say it's healthier for that reason alone. the difference is pretty slight.

      Yes, it's easy to use, store, and manufacture the sugar so it gets used a lot. Used to replace sugar.

      And I am not arguing it's good for you, only that it's not different the sugar. So like sugar, eat it wisely.

      "It's the dose that makes the poison." - Paracelsus

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. I think you meant COPYRIGHT, not COOL. by lunchlady55 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Corn's genome is not cool IT'S COPYRIGHT MONSANTO!
    tl;dr google it...

    1. Re:I think you meant COPYRIGHT, not COOL. by proxima · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you mean patent, not copyright.

      --
      "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
    2. Re:I think you meant COPYRIGHT, not COOL. by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First of, Monsanto owns patents, not copyrights. Second of all, that makes IP law and Monsanto uncool, not corn and certainly not the corn genome.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    3. Re:I think you meant COPYRIGHT, not COOL. by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Monsanto doesn't own the corn genome. That being said, they were trying to steal some of the credit for sequencing the genome, despite doing nothing to help. I can't find a source on that right now though, of the lead scientist opening up a paper an being surprised it read "Monsanto sequences corn genome."

      Anyway, no, the corn genome is not currently owned by monsanto, though if we're not careful I'm positive their lobbyists will find a way to steal it.

    4. Re:I think you meant COPYRIGHT, not COOL. by jestill · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is really strange that you would think that Monsanto had IP rights to the corn genome. You are quite wrong. The corn genome project was funded by public dollars.
      http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04614/nsf04614.pdf
      You can browse the maize genome or even download the data yourself:
      http://www.maizesequence.org/index.html
      I have multiple copies of this data on my hard drive now.
      You can also check out the Idiot's guide to corn at
      http://weedtowonder.org/
      Much of what we know about plant genetics and breeding is due to what we learned from corn. The corn genome is not just cool, but a fundamental model system. It provides insights into the genomes for the cereal plants that contribute most of the calories you eat every day.

      --
      "Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" -- Homer
  4. Re:Turkey and caner???? by SheeEttin · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, what part of the turkey gets "A slender, strong but often flexible stem, as of certain bamboos, reeds, or rattans"?

    The rears of the disobedient ones.
    Or the ones into S&M, I guess...

  5. Turkey Cancer by jameskojiro · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sweet delicious turkey basted in it's own cancerous giblets sauce.

    Mmmmm Mmmmm Gobble-licious.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  6. "You sound like my ex-wife." by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I see why she divorced you.

  7. Re:Turkey tumors - new delicacy? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have you ever kept water fowl?

    They love to eat, they will fight their way to the human to be fed. The production of foie gras may not be the healthiest thing for the creature, but they are not going to be living very long anyway nor does the feeding method cause them any real harm.

  8. Re:Chinese Chestnut? by Llamalarity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Who eats Chinese chestnuts?" Me for one, but yes true American chestnuts are noticeably sweeter. Though sadly much smaller... You neighbor should contact the American Chestnut Foundation and see if they might want to add his trees genome to their program. Which is to produce a blight resistant 15/16 American chestnut to restore back into the eastern forests. These folks have been quietly working on this for over 25 years and are very close to achieving their primary goal.

  9. Apples, Honey, Grapes and Pears by slew · · Score: 2, Informative

    You don't have to go so far out like agave (something many folks never will encounter except in it's liquid tequila form). Many common foods have a very high fructose content...

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000011000000000000000.html

    Ironically, corn (as opposed to HFCS) really doesn't show up on this list because the sugar in actual corn is mostly glucose (they have to process the crap out of corn-glucose convert some of the glucose to fructose to make HFCS).

    The corn "haters" out there that sweeten their drinks with honey and have their apple-a-day, really aren't really in a much superior situation when it comes to avoiding the problems associated with fructose (primarily that the fructose sugar isomer doesn't normally stimulate insulin production unlike the glucose isomer). Although if you actually eat an apple (as opposed to drinking apple juice or eating apple sauce), you probably get enough fiber to limit the intake of sugar.

    Also, something that everyone should know is that a surprisingly common ailment is fructose intolerance/malabsorption where the symptoms are similar to lactose intolerance. Avoiding all foods high in fructose often provides relief for this ailment.