Slashdot Mirror


Genetically Modified Plants To Produce Natural Lighting

kkleiner writes "A team has launched a crowdsourcing campaign to develop sustainable natural lighting by using a genetically modified version of the flowering plant Arabidopsis. Using the luciferase gene, the enzyme responsible for making fireflies glow, the researchers will design, print, and transform the genes into the target plant. The project, which was recently launched on Kickstarter, has already raised over $100k with over a month left to go."

7 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Re:energy? by danudwary · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Luciferase genes are common throughout nature. Not just fireflies. It's just where they were studied from first. There's no heat produced - it's essentially the most efficient light source we know of. Far more efficient that anything we can manufacture. The actual reaction is not terribly different from one of those plastic glow sticks, just a biological form of it.

    The only problem I see is that I just can't see how it's going to be very bright. I remember a classroom demo where the professor took purified luciferase and the reactants you need, and it lit up and glowed for a while, but petered out pretty quickly. The bio reaction is ATP-dependant, so having a plant with a bright light is going to have to consume tons of energy that the plant would rather be using to maintain normal processes.

  2. Re:Poor choice by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should use carnivorous plants. Put a few around the yard and you get rid of insects all while lighting it up for free!

  3. Re:Sustainable? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes indeed. In fact it might actually screw the plants up and cause them to think it's daytime. Personally, I think it would be a better prospect to do this in a fungus. Some of them already glow a little.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  4. Re:Going to Hell in a (brightly lit) Handbasket by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We could simply rename the enzyme.

    Hey, it worked for Rapeseed oil: when they cultivated it, they renamed it Canola oil.

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  5. Re:energy? by Alsee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, my first thought was that it's not going to be very bright. I did a back of the envelope calculation.

    According to Wikipedia photosynthesis efficiency is about 3 to 6% of incoming sunlight. Lets call it 4.5%. That's the energy a plant uses to grow and just to keep itself alive - lets assume we can burn about half of that energy for light production without starving the plant itself. In fireflies Lucifer is about 90 to 98 efficient in converting energy into light. Lets say out engineered plant manages 90%. Next let's note that this plant is going to waste energy glowing even during midday sun. That basically cuts in half (or less) the amount of useful energy spend on blowing at night in the dark. Next let's note that the light is going to be generated inside the plant, but only a portion of it will make it out and be visible. The rest will hit internal plant tissue and be absorbed (remember, the very purpose of leaf tissue is to be a good absorber of light). The fraction of light that usefully escapes is hard to estimate, but lets call it 50%.

    At this point we're down to about 1/200th.

    Peak direct visible sunlight is about 440 watts per square meter. Average from sunrise to sunset will be less than half that. And with the 1/200th factor above we're looking at less than 1 watt of light output per square meter. (Note that we don't need to mess with the leaf surface area, we only need to consider the 2-D cross-section of the plant intercepting the available sunlight.)

    The good news is that at this point in our calculation our wattage gets translated into light as if it's 100% efficiency. This means that a modest size BUSH that's 1 meter (or 1 yard) in diameter could, optimistically, glow at night with the equivalent light output of a 20-watt to 40-watt incandescent bulb.

    That's probably close to the high end of what's possible, and I doubt their first attempt will be that good, but it is more than I expected. If you have good night vision, and if you sat right up against a bush, it may be just enough to (uncomfortably) read by. If all you have is typical size potted plant you'll only get a tiny fraction of that much light though.... maybe 5% of that.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  6. turn the light off by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So how do we turn the light off? Move the pot out of the room?

  7. Re:Just say NO to GMO by Khyber · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At some point in the not too distant future technology will advance enough for a grad student to transplant the gene to produce THC into some other plant. I vote for <URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaceae> Glowing plants are just the beginning.

    "At some point in the not too distant future technology will advance enough for a grad student to transplant the gene to produce THC into some other plant."

    Umm, yea, no. You need certain structures to produce THC, and thus your chosen plant would fail pretty miserably.

    The closest plant you could even remotely think of transplanting the gene into would be the Tomato, which produces capitate-stalked trichomes, a structure essential for the production of THC.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.