Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Sequence Coffee Genome, Ponder Genetic Modification

Posted by Soulskill on from the can-you-modify-it-so-it-doesn't-taste-like-coffee dept.

nbauman sends word that researchers have completed a project to sequence the genome of Coffea canephora, a species of plant responsible for roughly 30% of the world's coffee production. In the course of their genetic mapping, the researchers "pinpointed genetic attributes that could help in the development of new coffee varieties better able to endure drought, disease and pests, with the added benefit of enhancing flavor and caffeine levels." They also discovered a broad range of genes that contribute to the production of flavor-related compounds and caffeine. Plant genomist Victor Albert said, "For any agricultural plant, having a genome is a prerequisite for any sort of high technology breeding or molecular modification. Without a genome, we couldn't do any real advanced research on coffee that would allow us to improve it — not in this day and age."

8 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Le sigh.... by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I am not some anti-GMO freak, although I think it is hubris to assume that we can tinker with genomes without unintended consequences. This quote:

    Without a genome, we couldn't do any real advanced research on coffee that would allow us to improve it — not in this day and age.

    Is pure shite. It is called selective breeding, and it has been done for centuries. While that may not be advanced enough for you tastes, it works, and it improves plant varietals. You do not have to splice DNA to make improvements.

    One day we may just go to far and drop like honeybees in a Monsanto cornfield.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Le sigh.... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ...They just were able to locate which genes are responsible for what, and can now proceed with attempting to coax it into what they want. ...

      And this is the only kind of "GMO" I'm willing to accept. Utilizing what's there, and doing the equivalent of selective breeding to express genes is all we really should be doing with the information at hand. Injecting new DNA, or arbitrarily altering it is a recipe for disaster IMNSHO. Having the genome handy and knowing what you want to express makes selective breeding a much faster process, without going into Monsanto Frankenland.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Le sigh.... by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am not some anti-GMO freak, although I think it is hubris to assume that we can tinker with genomes without unintended consequences. This quote:

      Without a genome, we couldn't do any real advanced research on coffee that would allow us to improve it — not in this day and age.

      Is pure shite. It is called selective breeding, and it has been done for centuries. While that may not be advanced enough for you tastes, it works, and it improves plant varietals. You do not have to splice DNA to make improvements.

      One day we may just go to far and drop like honeybees in a Monsanto cornfield.

      Don't you think selective breeding would be a tad easier if you knew what you were breeding for? Not all GMO is done by chemically modifying the genome. You can identify your target gene, select seeds that contain the desired genes, pollinate them with plants that contain only those genes.

      I know there's a lot of movies that demonize this process, but in reality what they are doing is not any different than what happens in nature. It's just that instead of getting random mutations over and over until we get what we want, we just go strait to the goal. If anything it's probably safer. When doing it with selective breeding we get tens of thousands of undesired variants before we get the plant we want. How many of those could have been the plague bringer? When we chemically modify the gene, we're only rolling the dice a single time.

      And for the record, no man made GM food has ever harmed a bee. Quite to the contrary, many GM plants were designed to need less pesticides and fertilizers, which definitely do harm bees. The one downside of GM plants in regards to bees is that they allow farmers to plant large monocultures with less of a chance of disease killing those plants. Bees are healthier in more diverse environments, so it would be better if they diversified their crops rather than just plant what has the highest price this year.

    3. Re:Le sigh.... by jabuzz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Clearly you have never heard of proteomics then. The idea that GMO is completely blind as to the possible effects is uneducated nonsense. Given that traditional selective breading requires no proteomic testing for unintended side effects, any sane rational person looking at the facts would conclude that GMO is in fact safer.

  2. Yeah, because that's a good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "This has genomes? LET'S MODIFY THEM!"

    Did any geneticist stop to think maybe, just maybe, we don't need to genetically modify everything? I get it--it'll herp all the pestilence and derp all the starvation or whatever--but organizations like Monsanto have been modifying genetics for decades (often with quite the vicious approach to people whom legitimately question them) and we're likely the hungriest among rich nations. Sure seems like all that genetic modification cured every bit of starvation!

  3. This is robusta coffee they're talking about by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was not familiar with the name coffea canephora so I looked it up. This is what I have heard in the past called coffea robusta. Maybe the name got changed to disguise what it is. A lot of people know what robusta coffee is. For those who don't know, robusta is considered an inferior species of coffee. Ever heard of coffees that say that they are 100% arabica? This is because just about everybody considers arabica to be superior to robusta. Robusta is used in blends because it is is very bitter. Robusta is more disease resistant and has higher crop yields than arabica, but I've never heard of it being used in concentrations of more than maybe 1o to 15% in blends. Usually the amount used is less than 10%. This is great, I guess, and I suppose if there were 100% robusta blends some crazy people would love it. Currently in the USA there's a big interest in making craft beers as bitter as possible. Those kind of people, who are in the minority, would probably love large robusta blends. But until they sequence and maybe talk about doing things to protect arabica from disease, this is mildly interesting and no more.

  4. Re:Motherfuckers by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you think coffee is bitter, try making it in a cold press. You can still warm it up if you like the idea of hot coffee, but you won't get a bit of bitterness. Plus it brings out all the caffeine so you'll feel like you've just taken a cocaine suppository, which are also kind of bitter, by the way, which is why you should not eat them.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Re:Motherfuckers by mellon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recommend that you try cold brew with a medium roast of good-quality arabica beans. Not *$$: go to your local co-op and get some good shade-grown beans. I've had good success doing a 12-hour cold brew: you take about a cup and a half of course ground coffee and add it to two quarts of water (I use a two-quart mason jar) and put it in the fridge overnight. After it's sat twelve hours, filter it through paper into another container. This is kind of an annoying process, and there are devices that you can get to simplify it, but I would start off just using a regular filter so that you can try it.

    The coffee this produces is much mellower than the equivalent coffee brewed hot. If you want it hot, it's okay to heat it: the reason you don't re-heat hot coffee is that the transition from hot to cold causes chemical changes that wreck the flavor, but the transition from cold to hot doesn't have this effect.