Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Synthetic Chromosomes Successfully Integrated Into Brewer's Yeast

Posted by Soulskill on from the origin-story-for-superyeast dept.

New submitter dunnomattic writes: "Researchers at New York University School of Medicine have achieved a milestone in synthetic biology. A fully synthetic yeast chromosome, dubbed 'synIII,' has successfully replaced chromosome 3 of multiple living yeast cells. The researchers pieced together over 250,000 nucleotide bases to accomplish this feat. Dr. Jef Boeke, the lead author of the study, says, 'not only can we make designer changes on a computer, but we can make hundreds of changes through a chromosome and we can put that chromosome into yeast and have a yeast that looks, smells and behaves like a regular yeast, but this yeast is endowed with special properties that normal yeasts don't have.' Work is underway (abstract) to synthesize the remaining 15 chromosomes."

82 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. One small step for man by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One giant leap for Synthehol.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:One small step for man by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hell with synthethol, we've got tomatoes cloned, we've got clam clones, we've got....

      Clamato.

      USA! USA!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:One small step for man by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      To hell with clamato, I want Tomacco!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:One small step for man by confused+one · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sir, do you not remember what happened last time? Please reference historical files entitled Attack of the Killer Tomatoes

    4. Re:One small step for man by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was bitten by radioactive yeast in the biology lab, and now have acquired the super-powers of YEASTMAN.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:One small step for man by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Ya know, if you have the power to shoot alcohol from your wrists, we might have to hang out.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:One small step for man by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was bitten by radioactive yeast in the biology lab, and now have acquired the super-powers of YEASTMAN.

      Have fun trying to get laid, Yeastman.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:One small step for man by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ya know, if you have the power to shoot alcohol from your wrists, we might have to hang out.

      Well, not my wrists, actually...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    8. Re:One small step for man by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      You know how yeast makes alcohol, right?

      He'll shoot alcohol alright, but he wont need any new orifices on his wrists...

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    9. Re:One small step for man by drainbramage · · Score: 3, Funny

      Looks like she's itching for more....

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    10. Re:One small step for man by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Because when I'm having a beer, the things I want most are tomatoes and clams.

      Who comes up with this shit? What next, a combination of beets and shrimp for your margarita? Some broccoli and sardines for your martini?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    11. Re:One small step for man by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

      C|N>K

    12. Re:One small step for man by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Because when I'm having a beer, the things I want most are tomatoes and clams.

      You may be unaware of this since Clamato isn't widely available in the US ... it's for a Canadian drink called a Caesar.

      It's kind of like a Bloody Mary, but with Clamato juice, a celery stick, and the top of the glass is rimmed with celery salt.

      Besides, beer and tomato juice is also a tasty thing. And you can have beer at a clam bake.

      They're not as mutually exclusive as you seem to think.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    13. Re:One small step for man by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Ummm, ugh. This and poutine, two reasons to think that long cold winters do bad things to the human mind, not to mention palate.

      Dude ... scrapple exists.

      Americans think cheese is a rubbery long-chain polymer which needs to be dyed orange. It's not even legally cheese, it's "cheese food" or something similar.

      There's a dish in the US called Frito Pie.

      Twinkies exist.

      Seriously, don't even talk to us about poutine -- fries, gravy, and cheese curd are at least recognizable foodstuff. Some of the shit you guys eat doesn't even meet the legal definition of food in a lot of countries.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    14. Re:One small step for man by Kizul+Emeraldfire · · Score: 1

      Ummm, ugh. This and poutine, two reasons to think that long cold winters do bad things to the human mind, not to mention palate.

      Dude ... scrapple exists.

      Americans think cheese is a rubbery long-chain polymer which needs to be dyed orange. It's not even legally cheese, it's "cheese food" or something similar.

      There's a dish in the US called Frito Pie.

      Twinkies exist.

      Seriously, don't even talk to us about poutine -- fries, gravy, and cheese curd are at least recognizable foodstuff. Some of the shit you guys eat doesn't even meet the legal definition of food in a lot of countries.

      I would just like to state for the record that, as an American, I think 'American pasteurized processed cheese food/cheese product' is an abomination, and that production of it should be stopped. I personally prefer cheddar, myself -- of varying degrees of sharpness, depending on how I'm using it -- or pepper jack cheese.

      Scrapple looks kinda like charred meatloaf. I'm almost curious to try it, but I'm not sure if my stomach would enjoy the experience afterward.

      Twinkies were -- ah, who am I kidding? They're pretty much the definitive junk food. (But they were better before Hostess 'came back'. Now they're smaller, rubbery, and have way less cream filling than before. It makes me sad.)

      I think Frito pie is a Southern thing -- possibly just a Texan thing, since I'd never before heard about it until I saw an episode of King of the Hill wherein Hank Hill mentions 'Frito pie with Wolf-brand chilli'. I have had Wolf chilli before, though -- and, in my opinion, it's pretty terrible.

    15. Re:One small step for man by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      'nuf said.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  2. Next goals: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    1) Metabolize human flesh
    2) Able to more easily spread via airborne routes
    3) Increase growth exponent
    4) Secrete nerve gas
    5) Infinite life span

    1. Re:Next goals: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that is a potential reality given enough sophistication in the field of biological engineering. Although, still a ways off.

    2. Re:Next goals: by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Honestly, I think that fear is overblown. Vertebrate pathogens have had hundreds of millions of years of optimization in the most ruthlessly selective "laboratory" ever known, and while there are obviously some pretty deadly ones out there they haven't managed to wipe us out yet. Nothing we do in a lab is likely to come close, in terms of coming up with something that can spread wildly on its own.

      I used to work between a synthetic bio lab at one end of the hall and an infectious disease lab at the other. Ask which one scared me more.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Next goals: by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the other hand, things like Dutch Elm Disease show just how devastating a new pathogen can be. I think co-evolution is why "natural" diseases don't have much chance in wiping us out. Given this new ability to skip evolution altogether, look out.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Next goals: by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Co-evolution only looks "co" on very large timescales; every new trick our immune systems have come up with has been in response to something a pathogen already came up with. Sure, there always can (and will) be new plagues, whether the victims are trees or people. I just think they're a whole lot more likely to come from the nigh-uncountable number of random "experiments" taking place in the wild than they are from anything done in a lab.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Next goals: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think the fear is overblown and I believe it to be quite justified by the theoretical potential of biotechnology. If history reveals anything to me, it is that humans have a very difficult time comprehending the consequences of their actions -- particular when it comes to non-linear advancements. The field of biological engineering is only a baby and we have yet to fully realize its potential; we only began to sequence genomes within the last two decades and we are just barely beginning to create our own. I suppose its easy to come to the conclusion that its fear mongering, particularly when humans are so optimistic in their ignorance.

      1) Metabolize human flesh -- humans form a biosphere that supports trillions of microorganism. There are numerous vectors that may be researched and used. Flesh eating microorganisms are known.

      2) Able to more easily spread via airborne routes -- already organisms able to spread via airborne routes. The air you breath is full of spores and other genetic material like viruses.

      3) Increase growth exponent -- Many microorganisms already grow exponentially if their isn't rate limiting resources.

      4) Secrete nerve gas -- I am unsure if their is a metabolic pathway for the synthesis of nerve gas, but their are many neurotoxins with known metabolic pathways that can be used.

      5) Infinite life span -- we currently believe their are some species that don't die from natural causes.

      I don't think its a matter of these organisms accidentally escaping...at least I hope nobody is stupid enough to fund this type of research. But rather, a deliberate design of a bioweapon. Technology can be used for the benefit of mankind or its destruction, just depends on how we want to use it. Biotech is no different and it is clearly evident that the attributes of one organisms can be engineered in others given the appropriate conditions.

      Technology tends to magnify the actions of 1 individual or organization -- Just look at botnets, sandy hook, 9/11, etc. Other civilizations didn't have worry about the concept of mass shootings because gun technology hadn't been developed. When biotech becomes sufficiently sophisticated and the infrastructure is in place, the actions of a few can totally have an impact on our globalized society. International airports could facilitate a pandemic -- a legitimate fear engineering aside.

      Biotech shouldn't be underestimated, particularly when we are biology. Look at the biosphere around you, the complexity of the molecules and diversity of species. It is a reality.

      --a published bioengineer

    6. Re:Next goals: by SalafranceUnderhill · · Score: 1

      Nature optimises for survival, though, whereas a designer pathogen can be optimised to infect, lie low, and then kill as many host organisms as possible, perhaps by employing some kind of biological trigger in the environment to synchronise its action.

      It doesn't matter whether its first efflorescence is sustainable in the long term. There will always be a role for it in human politics.

  3. So this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... is how the zombie apocalypse begins, with mutant yeast in our beer. I have an idea for the first brand: Coorpse Light.

    1. Re:So this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wouldn't that just be a relabeled Pabst?

    2. Re:So this ... by Dabido · · Score: 1

      Can bring my dead friends back to the living dead with Bud Riser.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  4. We Can Rebuild It by VorpalRodent · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, no super speed, or strength, or other abilities, no synthesizer music.

    For our $6,000,000, all we get is a "yeast endowed with special properties other yeasts don't have"? This will not make a compelling television drama. Perhaps a bland sitcom, but not much more.

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    1. Re:We Can Rebuild It by decipher_saint · · Score: 1

      What's that in the bar?

      Is it an Ale?

      Is it a Lager?

      NO! It's SUPERBEER

      *theme tune plays*

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    2. Re:We Can Rebuild It by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      All yeast dies off from alcohol at some level. If this is a serious commercial adjustment to the organism then I would be working on increasing alcohol tolerance. This would give better yields for the distillers and new wine and beer/ale/mead concoctions that will be ass kicking. Fortunately the Beer Pong Table industry is ready!
      https://www.google.com/search?q=Beer+Pong+tables&num=30&newwindow=1&safe=off&sa=X&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=UKA1U6LtIKPnsATSlIHABg&ved=0CEsQsAQ&biw=771&bih=428

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:We Can Rebuild It by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All yeast dies off from alcohol at some level. If this is a serious commercial adjustment to the organism then I would be working on increasing alcohol tolerance. This would give better yields for the distillers and new wine and beer/ale/mead concoctions that will be ass kicking.

      Or, Montsanto will, besides owning the entire food business, also own the entire alcoholic drink business as well.

      Welcome to the new world - where the only thing you can have is specially filtered water. After all, a plain glass of tap or bottled may have Monstanto yeast in it, and you'll need to license that bottle if you want to drink it.

    4. Re:We Can Rebuild It by VorpalRodent · · Score: 1

      If this is a serious commercial adjustment to the organism then I would be working on increasing alcohol tolerance.

      If that is a thing you can adjust, I think there are organisms other than the yeast that would be better served by that improvement.

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    5. Re:We Can Rebuild It by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      It would also make higher-alcohol distiller's beer available so less energy has to go into distilling for hard liquor or for fuel alcohol.

    6. Re:We Can Rebuild It by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      but not much more

      Just wait till you have it growing between your legs and nothing kills it... :p

    7. Re:We Can Rebuild It by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Please don't test it on monkeys... The idea of super drunk monkeys just freaks me out...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    8. Re:We Can Rebuild It by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All yeast dies off from alcohol at some level. If this is a serious commercial adjustment to the organism then I would be working on increasing alcohol tolerance.

      I would be wanting to make it make a biofuel better than alcohol. If you're gonna think about gene-tampering, think big.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:We Can Rebuild It by Immerman · · Score: 1

      It's all fun and games until someone insert the gene in *you*.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:We Can Rebuild It by mpe · · Score: 1

      All yeast dies off from alcohol at some level. If this is a serious commercial adjustment to the organism then I would be working on increasing alcohol tolerance. This would give better yields for the distillers and new wine and beer/ale/mead concoctions that will be ass kicking,

      Adding an amylase gene might also help.

    11. Re:We Can Rebuild It by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Or, Montsanto will, besides owning the entire food business, also own the entire alcoholic drink business as well.

      Or, you know, you could grow your own food and make your own drink using 'heirloom' stock. Rumor has it people have based entire businesses around heirloom strains.

      Welcome to the new world - where the only thing you can have is specially filtered water. After all, a plain glass of tap or bottled may have Monstanto yeast in it, and you'll need to license that bottle if you want to drink it.

      I've looked at every reported decision where Monsanto has sued some poor innocent farmer who allegedly had pollen blown into his fields -- which is really hard when you're talking about Roundup-ready soybeans -- and, amazingly, the poor farmer always manages to convince the judge that he intentionally planted large quantities of the Roundup-ready crop. He doesn't mean to convince the judge of that. He just happens to do so by 1. nuking a field with Roundup and then collecting the seeds of the surviving crop to replant or 2. buying seed from a non-seed elevator (unusual but not illegal) and then nuking the planted seedlings with Roundup (because of course you'd apply a non-selective herbicide to your non-Roundup-ready crop).

      So it's obvious you can karma-whore by railing against the agri-villan, but can you back it up with facts? Or not?

    12. Re:We Can Rebuild It by goofyspouse · · Score: 1

      Is it an Ale?

      Is it a Lager?

      I guess that all depends on whether it is a top-fermenting yeast or a bottom-fermenting yeast...

    13. Re:We Can Rebuild It by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Montsanto will, besides owning the entire food business, also own the entire alcoholic drink business as well.

      You are wrong, promoting a bullshit conspiracy theory, and you didn't even spell Monsanto right either time.

    14. Re:We Can Rebuild It by ketomax · · Score: 1

      So, you do tremble before grodd!

    15. Re:We Can Rebuild It by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      All yeast dies off from alcohol at some level. If this is a serious commercial adjustment to the organism then I would be working on increasing alcohol tolerance.

      I would be wanting to make it make a biofuel better than alcohol. If you're gonna think about gene-tampering, think big.

      What if they could make a beer that was so strong it caused you to think you were going somewhere when you were just sitting in your living room? That could save a bunch of carbon.... wait, how much carbon in a beer belch? Munroe!!!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    16. Re:We Can Rebuild It by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      Isn't that also the process by which Monsanto created the roundup-ready crops in the first place?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    17. Re:We Can Rebuild It by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      They inserted a gene for a version of the EPSP synthase enzyme (the enzyme that produces aromatic amino acids, and the target of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round-Up) from Agrobacterium, as well as a gene from petunia that moves the enzyme to the chloroplast where it is needed. That way when you spray Round-Up, it binds to and deactivates the native plant version of EPSP synthase, but the bacterial one, which is different at the binding site of the glyphosate, still functions, thus creating an herbicide tolerant plant.

    18. Re:We Can Rebuild It by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Dmitri Martin's Amoebacorn; a microscopic organism with magical powers that are insignificant because of its size.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  5. The screams will be forthcoming soon.... by jcochran · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh lord, the Luddites are bad enough with "normal" genetically engineered foods. I hate to imagine the kind of outcry they're do for this.

    1. Re:The screams will be forthcoming soon.... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      I don't call cross-breeding spider DNA with corn DNA "normal".

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    2. Re:The screams will be forthcoming soon.... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      I don't call cross-breeding spider DNA with corn DNA "normal".

      What do you have against web slinging crime fighting corn?

      Spider Corn, Spider Corn!
      Eat this stuff and your guts you'll mourn!

      (don't have time to finish the song, an unhappy WD Blue needs me... sorry)

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:The screams will be forthcoming soon.... by ProzacPatient · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (Yes I do realize that first link is The Onion but its funny because its basically true)

      I don't particularly have ill feelings toward genetic engineering, in fact I believe it can be a good thing, but what I do care about is the profiteering of it that Monsanto has used to hold everyone hostage, though that is more of a symptom of the broken legal system than anything.

      Monsanto has achieved a monopoly status by using the legal system to patent their modifications and then they sell those patented GMO plants that are (supposedly) only immune to Monsanto pesticides and then they go around and sue everyone bankrupt for using unlicensed Monsanto technology because nature did its thing and cross pollinated with some nearby farmer's crops. Monsanto's exploitation of nature to achieve a monopoly is so bad that some countries have completely banned Monsanto and its products. At this point it surprises me Monsanto doesn't have a protection racket going on where you can buy a "subscription" to GMO products that might happen to pollinate with your old fashioned non-GMO plants.

      Oh and I'll just throw it out there that Monsanto were the ones who developed and peddled Agent Orange to the U.S. Government as a cure all for jungle warfare back in the day.

    4. Re:The screams will be forthcoming soon.... by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Trust me, there is nothing we can do the corn genome that corn wouldn't do itself if it had the opportunity. Corn is weird.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    5. Re:The screams will be forthcoming soon.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Corn: it filters carbon by isotope, despite chemical equivalence. What can't corn do?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:The screams will be forthcoming soon.... by lgw · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The only reason anyone cares about Monsanto IP is that the products are better (unless you have the luxury of organic). If the farmer didn't come out ahead by buying Monsanto seed, he wouldn't bother.

      But if Monsanto were as profitable as you seem to imagine, it would have several competitors each with it's own IP. Look at their finances: good by the standards of heavy industry, but terrible by the standards of an "IP company". Eh, they employ 20,000 people, and they do OK but not great. Not the evil overlord at all, really.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:The screams will be forthcoming soon.... by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Maybe large overgrown teosinte plants that can't even survive in the wild aren't normal and sea slugs with algae genes are. Normal isn't always what you think.

    8. Re:The screams will be forthcoming soon.... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Corn: it filters carbon by isotope, despite chemical equivalence. What can't corn do?

      Be a viable industry without massive federal agricultural subsidies?

      I'd like to see it do that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Eloi & Morlocks are Coming by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Who will your decedents become?

  7. One kind of outcry, on cue. by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    I have some experience in the field of invasive, noxious weeds.
    My complaint is that Herr Doktor Frankenstein has chosen to perform his fiendish experiments with a creature so adept at aerosol migration and insinuation.
    Just sayin'.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  8. The Blob by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    This story could be the basis for the second remake of The Blob (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051418/)!

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  9. Isn't this a lot like programming? by 3seas · · Score: 2

    Take a huge program and hey... lets change this little part and see what happens/

    1. Re:Isn't this a lot like programming? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      In a lot of ways, it is similar, but there are some important differences. The biggest one, I think, is that programs are (or had better be!) deterministic: make a particular change and a particular thing will happen every time. Living systems, even relatively simple ones like yeast cells, are stochastic: make a particular change and the probability of a particular thing happening increases or decreases. What you're counting on when growing a culture of mutated cells is that enough of the cells will behave in the desired fashion to make the behavior of the colony predictable, but the underlying randomness remains.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Isn't this a lot like programming? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      The new code has to meet the required interface, so it's basically the Factory Pattern with biological and artificial implementations.

      Good analogy actually, I'm not sure what a good car analogy would be...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    3. Re:Isn't this a lot like programming? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Both code and yeast have deterministic underpinnings. But at scale both can only be modeled statistically. Sure, it's way easier to get a billion yeast cells than a billion customers, so you get there faster, but I'm working with software at the billion-user scale now and, well, we do a lot of statistics.

      Sure, specific bugs get identified and fixed and you hope the bug fix spreads fast (and you have some control over that), but the same is true with yeast mutations.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Isn't this a lot like programming? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      No, biological processes are inherently non-deterministic, and this becomes more apparent the smaller the scale. At the genetic level, it's all about probabilities. I suppose you could argue the same about computation since circuits are now getting small enough for quantum effects to show up, but I don't think most programmers are explicitly modeling random bit flips! On large scales, when you're talking about big programs with lots of different possible inputs, it's often more effective to model them statistically, I agree, but the underlying processes are still quite different.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  10. I for one... by ubermiester · · Score: 1

    ...welcome our new genetically engineered super-yeast overlords. May they raise our bread to new heights - like 40 feet in the air maybe...

  11. Re:This is unholy by gnick · · Score: 1

    Leave our beer alone? If you could get an Arrogant Bastard for the price of a Keystone, wouldn't you?

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  12. New dimension for beer by dbc · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else thinking this could lead to some interest new craft beers?

    1. Re:New dimension for beer by hippo · · Score: 1

      I'd like to volunteer for the testing process. Two pints a day for ten years should give you a good idea if it is harmful. Please deliver to my local.

  13. Luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is it when anyone brings up a criticism or a potential problem that technology may cause, they are labeled a "Luddite"?

    Technology is not always good (Hydrogen Bomb) and sometimes causes social problems that will cause quite a bit of adjustment and suffering (automation and the fact that other industries are not absorbing all the displaced workers as happened 175 years ago.)

    Going in half-cocked without planning for the possible ramifications causes more problems down the road and turns people off to the new technology - resulting in irrational bans. Sometimes you cannot plan for the future (no one really knew how devastating the atom bombs would truly be on all accounts - sorry, a desert test doesn't cut it).

    When we start manipulating genes, there is always a cost. Somewhere down the line there will be a cost - super strong crops end up with super strong weeds.

    All of the consequences cannot be foreseen and therefore; makes a cost benefit analysis impractical.

    Should we stop? No. Absolutely NOT. For another technology example: even though we have super bugs out there now, I would NEVER wish for penicillin to not have been invented.

    What we need to do is take it slow. Let's not rush in and use our new toy - genetic engineering. Let us go slow, learn, and increase our wisdom.

  14. Action series by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    I think it will become an action series: the Six Million Dollar Yeast.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  15. Thats ok come at me bro!!! by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    I can protect my self from you by rubbing Monistat all over my body.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  16. GMO Beer?? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    Just fuckin' greatâ¦GMO beer.

    Folksâ¦leave our food and drink alone eh?

    Please�

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  17. Re:This is unholy by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not a perfect analogy, but German and Belgian beers are a good example of what you can do with narrow and open views on ingredients, respectively. The Germans were limited by the Reinheitsgebot to what they could use in their beers, and they produce a relatively narrow range of lagers which are, in my opinion, unspectacular. In contrast, the Belgians use a much wider range of ingredients and adjuncts. They produce what are widely considered some of the finest beers in the world, and they have a much wider range of styles.

  18. Next stop -- THC... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

    Well, not just THC or other cannibinoids. Antibiotics (that don't kill yeast, anyway). Other drugs. Gasoline. Biodiesel. Name your poison, find the gene sequence that can do it, splice it into yeast the way they are already doing it with so many other microorganisms (e.g. e. coli., chlorella, etc).

    But (as a beer maker) -- yeast that synthesizes THC directly into the wort as it works, no actual hemp plants needed, no expensive grow lights, no hidden greenhouse or plot in the middle of the woods, no need to smoke or vaporize, no actual taste (compared to the already sublime taste of barley and hops) -- slightly scary idea, actually. And it would make it so VERY difficult to maintain the prohibition on cannibinoids. I've long wondered how long it will take for some enterprising molecular biologist to splice THC production into tomatoes or corn (where it might have an actual evolutionary advantage as a pest repellant!) but I never dreamed of brewer's yeast. Bread yeast is almost the same thing (very close cousins)! Bread will never be the same!

    rgb

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  19. Risk Management by mynamestolen · · Score: 1

    To the person who commented that those who don't like GMO will freak out.

    Think about this.

    A modified yeast which creates an antibiotic or survives in higher alcohol concentrations or (insert your own scenario) escapes into the wild and displaces "normal" yeast. What then?

    This is great news but let's have a look at the risks.

    --
    work in progress
  20. Coming soon from Dogfish Head, no doubt.... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    Those folks will put anything in a beer....and make some fascinating brews!

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  21. Yeah, this could be the THC-orange urban legend... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    coming true.

    http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=76;t=000176;p=0

    A better candidate for sneaking THC into beer would be a GMO hop variety, as hops are the closest botanical relative to Cannabis.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  22. YADA: Yet Another DNA Assembler by viking80 · · Score: 1

    Now life can be created in minutes.
    You can download YADA from sourceforge.net.
    The GUI interface allows you to drag an drop and build for example luminescent marijuana plant that also contain caffeine.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  23. Great! New flavours! by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Tastes the future! Welcome to new synthetic flavours: Vin de Nylon, Vin de Phenolic, Cellulose Stout, Polyester Malt, Acrylic Vodka...

  24. Re:I'm glad by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Super beer yeast was already created by old fashioned selective breeding, we really did not have to do anything questionable for that.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  25. Re:This is unholy by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Hops are expensive. Keystone and Arrogant Bastard differ in both quantity and quality.
    I don't think its the yeast.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  26. Re:high alcohol yeast by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Already done.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  27. 50,000 changes called "hardy"? by mattr · · Score: 1

    The original yeast had 50,000 copies of the chromosome which were discarded, replacing them with just a single copy of it because they were deemed irrelevant, and when the yeast remained alive it was called "hardy". IANA biochemist but still, one might think 50,000 copies could have an advantage as if cellular processes were to hit them randomly and transparently (like 50,000 disks in a RAID mirror where you don't know which physical disk was actually accessed) then a mutation in one copy would have 50,000 times less chance of hurting the cell. That the cell remains alive only means that in the hours it took for cell division to be proven no mutations occurred, but instead of this meaning the cell is hardy it could actually be 50,000 times more susceptible to mutation or other Bad Things.

    Another possibility is that there are very subtle differences among the 50,000 copies, perhaps in just a small number of genes, among which the cell could switch in the event of environmental change, or it could even encode information "learned" over the course of evolution by the strain. Switch to this copy if you are being attacked by this pathogen, or if you see a lot of this nutrient around you, etc. Again this would be the definition of "hardy" so the scientist again would be wrong. Of course this is just a layman's view, have not read the paper, they probably don't care, etc. Anybody with a degree care to comment?

  28. Finally by midknightfalcon · · Score: 1

    Now I can make this http://youtu.be/ebfLWAB8bY4