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."

16 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Mosquitos by TrollstonButtersbean · · Score: 5, Funny

    They need to do this to mosquitoes, let the modification spread around several generations and make a better world ...

    1. Re:Mosquitos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But how long before the gene dies out? Glowing mosquitoes make easy targets. Unmodified ones will have a distinct genetic advantage.

  2. Just say NO to GMO by RussR42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just kidding. Here's the Kickstarter Link.

    1. Re:Just say NO to GMO by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Funny

      One way to find out.

      And you just added something to my list of things to try.

    2. Re:Just say NO to GMO by Local+ID10T · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is GMO I can truly appreciate. Of course, I would also support development of gigantic venus-flytraps that are self-mobile...

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    3. 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.
  3. Going to Hell in a (brightly lit) Handbasket by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    While I think this is pretty cool and all (Avatar anyone?), once people get a hold of the fact that the enzyme is called 'Luciferase', things could get rather warm for the company (at least in the US).

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. Sustainable? by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Energy will come from sun, so the idea is basically to store it as ATP and/or glucose, and release it as light using luciferase. Is it efficient? More efficient than solar cell/battery/LED? At least it has a point: this energy storage system will need no rare element, and it will be disposable without generating any solution.

    1. Re:Sustainable? by lazybratsche · · Score: 5, Informative

      This was my first concern. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations:

      Photosynthesis is pretty lousy in terms of thermodynamic efficiency. About 1% of the light that hits a plant is converted to useful chemical energy. The plant will have to use most of that energy for its metabolic processes. Luciferase itself is a very efficient enzyme, however, so I'll generously assume that 10% of the energy that the plant captures can be turned into useful light. So the overall efficiency can't be much higher than 0.1%. By comparison, solar cells are around 10% efficient, and LEDs 20%, so at first glance the luciferase plant seems to be an order of magnitude less efficient than the solar powered flashlight my in-laws gave me for christmas.

      In absolute terms, there is about 100 watts/meter^2 of energy in sunlight. If you've got a one-square-meter window full of the hypothetical plants sitting in sunshine all day, let's say they can absorb 1500 watt-hours, and then convert 1.5 watt-hours into useful light. That'd be comparable to running a 5-watt LED for an hourish, which could be useful if you could turn the luminescence on and off at will. But if the plant is glowing all night and only a portion of the light is emitted in a useful direction, maybe the window-full-of-plants would give off light comparable to the little cluster of LEDs on the front of my computer. So overall I'd say that the idea is not completely impossible, but still totally impractical.

  5. Natural? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think that means what they think it means.

  6. 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
  7. Re:No more GMO! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Funny

    Go to google and type in "gmo tumors" or "gmo infertility" to research for yourself.

    Wow. While I was at it, I googled "measles and autism" and "moon landing hoax."

    After all, they can't put anything on the Internet if it isn't true.

  8. Re:No more GMO! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like you read the Forbes article and are just repeating what they said.

    Especially fun is that the Rats that they fed the fucking roundup pesticide live longer than any of the other rats.

    Just because they didn't get cancer from drinking the pesticide doesn't mean the pesticide-resistant GMO crops are safe.

    And that's really the problem with GMO, testing sucks. There are very few, if any, meaningful and rigorous tests. Lots of short term test and tons of grandfathering in genes because they came from other organisms where they were not a problem. But when it comes to comprehensive testing that could reassure the general population of the safety of GMO crops, there just isn't any.

    Given the history we have with things like thalidomide, DDT, leaded gasoline, fen-phen, etc it is not unreasonable that people be genuinely concerned about GMO crops, especially given how widespread they've become with such little public notice. Dismissing those concerns as the equivalent of creation science is at least as bad as creationism itself because it is just another misplaced faith.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  9. 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.
  10. Re:No more GMO! by locopuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The big problem with pesticide resistant crops isn't that the are genetically modified, it is that they use a ton of pesticide on them. The people eating them get more pesticide in their system. Pesticide is not something you want to eat.

  11. Some relevant biology... by the+biologist · · Score: 5, Informative

    Adding the Luciferase gene is fine and dandy. But to get the plant to glow, it also has to produce the appropriate luciferin. The photo they use of a glowing tobacco plant was produced by watering the tobacco with luciferin solution and then using a very long exposure. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glowing_tobacco_plant.jpg)

    That said, the luciferin found in dinoflagelates is derived from chlorophyll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferin) and it is conceptually possible to introduce the relevant algae genes into their plant... once the genes have been identified. This sort of metabolic engineering is a MUCH bigger task than the Kickstarter campaign people are planning for.

    The energetic difficulty could be worked around by making the plant into a biological capacitor... where it builds up luciferin all day and then discharges in a flash at night. The plants wouldn't be of any use in landscape lightly, but they would be a really cool landscape feature. The downside is they might drive any local fireflies insane.