Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Finally Unlock the Recipe For Magic Mushrooms (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Aside from being a schedule 1 drug, scientists haven't fully understood the chemistry behind how mushrooms produce the chemical psilocybin -- until now. A new study may finally lay the groundwork for a medical-grade psilocybin patients can take. Gizmodo reports: "Living things make molecules through a series of chemical reactions, similar to how car makers produce cars on assembly lines. Enzymes act as the workers/robots, speeding up the reactions by helping put the pieces together. Actually making psilocybin requires mapping the biological factory. A 1968 paper (obviously it was in 1968) offered a proposed order of events leading to a finished psilocybin molecule, by adding radioactive elements and watching what happened to them on the assembly line. The researchers thought that maybe tryptophan, the amino acid everyone wrongly says makes you sleepy, was the first piece, which then went through four successive steps to become the finished product. The new study shows that the 1968 paper got the order wrong, and introduces the responsible genes and enzymes, the workers that do the specific task to get the final product. This time around, mapping the factory required sequencing the genomes of two magic mushroom species, Psilocybe cubensis and Psilocybe cyanescens. Then, the researchers found exactly which genes produce the required enzymes and spliced them into E. coli bacteria. Using those enzymes, they were able to rebuild the factory and create their own psilocybin." The study has been published in the German journal Angewandte Chemie.

132 comments

  1. 1968? by intellitech · · Score: 1

    A 1968 paper (obviously it was in 1968)

    Sorry, but why is this obvious? Just redundant text or is there another reason?

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:1968? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Informative

      1968, one year before Woodstock.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:1968? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they are implying that "everyone was doing drugs in the 1960s" (in the USA). Of course it wasn't anywhere near true, but that decade is generally associated with "liberal drug use" and "hippies" in the US. The 1970s were the same in other countries.

    3. Re:1968? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems arbitrary.

    4. Re:1968? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems strange because it is so far away at the other end of the sentence but I think they are referring to the radiation experiments, it was all the rage back then.

    5. Re:1968? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      May 1968 is a very significant date in France, marked by the youth protesting against authority.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I'm not sure how it relates to a German paper though.

    6. Re: 1968? by bestweasel · · Score: 2

      And those hippie drug fiends are today around 70. Why not ask granny about those trips she went on?.

    7. Re:1968? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a lot of ways, the 60s ended the day we sold that van, December 31, 1969.

    8. Re:1968? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It has the same significance in Germany and for the very same reason.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    9. Re: 1968? by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      A 1968 paper (obviously it was in 1968)

      Sorry, but why is this obvious? Just redundant text or is there another reason?

      My guess is that the submitter/editor refers to the lack of online papers.

    10. Re: 1968? by PatientZero · · Score: 3, Informative

      My guess is that the submitter/editor refers to the lack of online papers.

      No, TFA alludes to the 60s being a decade of hallucinogenic drug exploration.

      --
      Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
      I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
    11. Re:1968? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, even the CIA ain't what it used to be. Today they only use drugs to fund their projects instead of doing the right thing and giving them out to the people for free.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:1968? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Here is an ad for a certain German cola brand from 1968. Tell me this has nothing to do with psychodelics, I dare you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:1968? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      In Sweden the concept of the "68th left" is a thing.
      https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      1968 just happen to be a symbol of that movement which started around then and started to vanish away around 1976.

      So it's just a left reference which by extension I guess may be a hippie reference which by extension would be a drug user reference. Kinda connected, but not head on :)
      (Well, unless you consider drugs a necessity to be left ;D)

    14. Re:1968? by sabbede · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's the last time it was easy to do research on most recreational drugs. Psilocybin was marked Schedule 1 in 1970, after which research became quite difficult.

    15. Re: 1968? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was one year after the Summer of Love and the beginning of the popularized psychedelic-era. It's been quite a big deal in the news over the last few months, it being the 50th anniversary and such like.

      Aspects of the psychedelic experience were all over art, literature and fashion. It might seem arbitrary if you know nothing about Western history and culture during this period. Perhaps a college history or arts course would help? Or maybe read more about topics that aren't drugs?

    16. Re:1968? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      1968, one year before Woodstock.

      And one year after the Summer of Love

    17. Re:1968? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . .

      And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .

      So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.”

      Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re: 1968? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But did the scientist drop it in to their mouths and freak out in the lab or try to jump out a 3rd story window or get lost in a forest after creating it?

    19. Re:1968? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Timothy Leary wasn't dead yet.

    20. Re: 1968? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      We can't stop here! This is bat country!

    21. Re:1968? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test - Published 1968

    22. Re:1968? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      As your attorney, I advise you to tell me where you hid the goddamn mescaline.

  2. I'm not a coward I will test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No coward here I will test it!!!

    1. Re:I'm not a coward I will test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

    2. Re:I'm not a coward I will test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reality sucks, so why not augment it?

    3. Re:I'm not a coward I will test it by king+neckbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Generally speaking, psychedelics aren't the best choice for hiding from reality. You are likely to end up with a heavy dosage of reality, possibly more than you feel you can handle. Now, alcohol and opiates, those will let you hide from reality.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re: I'm not a coward I will test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa. VR + Pharmaceutical Psychedelics could be the next Uber! Take a nice safe trip, we got the steering wheel. (There will only be a couple of ads)

    5. Re: I'm not a coward I will test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is doing something for real hiding from reality? You take shrooms, you trip. You don't even have to get philosophical about it, it happens.

    6. Re:I'm not a coward I will test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, alcohol doesn't let you hide from reality, alcohol is a rubbish drug, because it doesn't induce euphoria (happiness), just deadens your nerves a little and reduces motor control. That's it. And makes you feel sick if you have too much of it. People use alcohol so that they can make excuses for their bad behaviour, or poor personalities, and blame it on the alcohol. In vino veritas.

    7. Re:I'm not a coward I will test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you say you prefer your ganja tea without milk? Good to know. Now let's get back to talking about mushrooms.

    8. Re: I'm not a coward I will test it by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      At least we'll then know what drugs it takes to find ads enjoyable.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:I'm not a coward I will test it by avandesande · · Score: 1

      It's more like giving your 'mental chalkboard' a thorough cleaning.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    10. Re:I'm not a coward I will test it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well not for hiding from reality, sure. But finding an expanded one? Sure!
      Look, if you have good experiences, (which is more likely), you can bring that forward with you for the rest of your life.

      Experiences that will paint itself onto the more daily sober-reality and give you a most positive outlook, especially when things seem dim. You can always take a breath & remember to not sweat the small stuff and, most importantly, if you approach life with a good attitude you will not ignite all the crap around you. And there is a lot of crap.

  3. Timothy Leary's Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or is this a commercial for Vice Tv?

    1. Re:Timothy Leary's Dead by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.

    2. Re:Timothy Leary's Dead by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      +1000000 Internets!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Timothy Leary's Dead by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Or is he inside, looking out?

      Who knows what listening to 'ein kleine nachtmusik' too many times whilst on psychedelics might do...

  4. I wonder... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    If they release this E. coli variant into the wild, will people start getting high when they catch it?

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be one bad trip, man.

    2. Re: I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider that the most common form of e coli transmission is through feces, this could make rim jobs quite the enjoyable pass time for both parties!

    3. Re: I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait? Who said it wasn't already???

    4. Re: I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could bring new meaning to having a sh!tty time.

    5. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or getting a colony of it established in the gut...

      Permanent high....

    6. Re:I wonder... by heson · · Score: 1

      Tripping on raw chicken!

    7. Re:I wonder... by Gilgaron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have honestly been surprised that cloning the genes into E. coli or yeast for various illicit substances hasn't become widespread already. Whenever I see those articles about people "biohacking" in their garage to figure out whatever genetic illness their kid has I keep waiting to see a followup where they fund the treatment for their kid with a big fermenter full of THC.

    8. Re: I wonder... by haliburns · · Score: 1

      Why aren't we funding this?

    9. Re:I wonder... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Probably because it's pretty hard. Even with modern day chemistry sets, gene splicing isn't just cut and paste. Then you need to figure out what you just made and purify it. Requires a fairly sophisticated lab, not just a garage.

      It's certainly doable. I have no doubt in certain wilder, less civilized parts of the world like Trenton, NJ (or most anyplace in New Jersey for that matter) someone is trying to do this but it's not easy.

      And doing this on an industrial scale is even harder. OTOH, grown P. cubensis from spores in the darkroom of the SEM lab as an undergraduate was pretty easy.

      I miss the '70's....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have honestly been surprised that cloning the genes into E. coli or yeast for various illicit substances hasn't become widespread already. Whenever I see those articles about people "biohacking" in their garage to figure out whatever genetic illness their kid has I keep waiting to see a followup where they fund the treatment for their kid with a big fermenter full of THC.

      Mainly because anyone who can genetically modify yeast is also well enough educated to figure out that it'd be illegal to sell the product of that process (even where pot is legal mixing your own designer drug or process to reproduce a restricted drug then selling it without regulatory approval is a no-no) and thus you expend a lot of unnecessary effort for no real gain compared to juts growing the canibis plants (which are stupidly easy to care for even by the low standard of plants).

    11. Re: I wonder... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      Wait? Who said it wasn't [released in the wild and colonizing peoples' guts, sending them on a permanent psychedelic experience] palready???

      Maybe that would explain the political situation of the last few years. B-)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    12. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have honestly been surprised that cloning the genes into E. coli or yeast for various illicit substances hasn't become widespread already.

      You missed the boat.
      Synthetic molecule mass production for such things was a pretty big deal a few years ago.

      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWH-018

      This type of thing first hit the market with the intent to be "technically legal", which was deemed worth the slightly higher cost.
      As the above molecule contains no THC it was not a scheduled substance, but its effect on the body was identical to mixing both strains of a fairly pure quality.

      Other substances were replicated and mass produced as well from what I hear.

      Eventually the legal system in the US updated the analog substance act so that not only are similar molecules automatically scheduled, but now any substance that has similar effects is also auto scheduled. I guess so they don't have to keep playing wack-a-mole.

      Since manufacturing such things, at least for the THC effects, wasn't actually cheaper than the real thing, as soon as the legal loophole was closed off it didn't make much sense to keep making the stuff.

    13. Re:I wonder... by jediborg · · Score: 2

      reproducing psilocybin is way, WAAY easier than reproducing cannabis in bacteria. I say cannabis and not "THC" because while THC has been reproduced in a chemical laboratory, there are about 12 different variants, and hundreds of other terpenes and cannabinoids in the cannabis plant that are unidentified, chemical reproduction procedures are unknown, and how they interact with THC and the human brain are mostly unkown. psilocybin is basically just one chemical, while the cannabis plant is dozens of different chemicals, and different strains produce different combinations that effect humans differently. This is why some strains of weed give people energy and focus, while other strains cause 'couch lock' making a user feel sedated, pain-free and want to sit down and listen to music :) Some strains cause the 'munchies' and are very effective at relieving nausea, while others are not. How these mechanisms work and how they can be reproduced in a laboratory is mostly unknown. Every single cannabis plant is basically a miniature chemical producing facility so trying to get this to work with E. coli is a lot more complicated than you might think.

      just using straight up THC is undesirable for many medical patients and even recreational users

      SOURCE: I've been living in Colorado for 2 years

  5. Woo hoo! by piojo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Personally, I'm excited to see what this brings for treatment of depression and social anxiety. And maybe in twenty years, we'll come around and be willing to explore micro-dosing for medical purposes. (There is anecdotal evidence that it reduces emotional PMS to zero for a lot of women, and I'm curious what it does for those with reduced attention spans.)

    --
    A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    1. Re:Woo hoo! by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also proven very effective at drastically reducing the frequency of migraine and cluster headaches.

    2. Re:Woo hoo! by clovis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally, I'm excited to see what this brings for treatment of depression and social anxiety. And maybe in twenty years, we'll come around and be willing to explore micro-dosing for medical purposes. (There is anecdotal evidence that it reduces emotional PMS to zero for a lot of women, and I'm curious what it does for those with reduced attention spans.)

      tl;dr

    3. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll also be interesting to see what this brings for pizza.

    4. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The very best drug experience of my life was with mushrooms. That was over twenty years ago. I've never sought them out since, but I probably should. I felt so much clarity about life and the "universe". The positive mood probably lasted at least 6 months after that experience. I would use them again to try and cure the depression, etc, but I don't know where to get them now. My friends from 20's era are on to other things. I am definitely interested in micro-doses as anti-depressant. Fucking government keeps this shit from becoming common place because they don't want us seeing what is really happening. At least that is what I see. Don't want entities that have high-order consciousness realizing their place in the universe above the elite. Fucking republicans and democrats is all there is. Fuck the elite.

    5. Re: Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They grow in many sections of the country naturally during certain times of year.

    6. Re:Woo hoo! by queazocotal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point in making it genetically, not via extraction from mushrooms (which is very, very very cheap) is so that you can tweak the molecule a little, and then get a patent approved for it, and then put it through FDA licencing, in order to get an exclusivity period while the patent is valid.
      Purely political alas.

    7. Re: Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alas, it is the corporate world we live in. Now if this is what was meant by "Sell us the rope to hang them with"...

    8. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can probably order spores of Psilocybe species by mail, possibly legally. Depending on where you are, the illegality usually comes when you grow the spores, which is easy to do with little equipment or effort; the key is to keep everything sterile so other fungi don't get a toehold.

    9. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And maybe in twenty years, we'll come around and be willing to explore micro-dosing for medical purposes. "

      Just infect a doorknob in a local high-school and you'll see.

    10. Re:Woo hoo! by Ubi_NL · · Score: 1

      true, but you can then only patent the improvement, which (if people pay for this) needs to be substantial. The patent will not strip you of the ability to use the unmodified product.

      --

      If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
    11. Re:Woo hoo! by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but lets face it. While it was fun when we were young, sneaking into a farmer's cow field, avoiding the bull, the angry cows, and the angry farmer gets kinda old after a while.

      Not only that, but many/most farmers in my area use the anitbiotics, etc. in feed which kills 'shroom production.

      Of course, if you do get some, you can always set up some brown rice and add the spores adn grow your own in a shit free environment....

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    12. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Organic brown rice flour mixed with vermiculite, to be exact. Plus a pressure cooker to sterilize everything beforehand and a rig, built by cannibalizing an ultrasonic humidifier plus a few stages of precipitators built from 2L Coke bottles and plastic tubing, to maintain the ideal moisture level.

      Not that I would ever do such a thing, of course.

    13. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point in making it genetically, not via extraction from mushrooms (which is very, very very cheap) is so that you can tweak the molecule a little, and then get a patent approved for it, and then put it through FDA licencing, in order to get an exclusivity period while the patent is valid.
      Purely political alas.

      There are also benefits to transplanting the genes into a species that's more suited to industrial processes if you want to mass produce medicine from it.

      A bioreactor full of yeast or bacteria will probably out-produce a similar-sized mushroom farm by rather a lot.

    14. Re:Woo hoo! by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      There pretty much aren't.
      Making it from mushrooms, in an industrial setting is almost free per dose.
      http://www.growmagicmushrooms.co.uk/grow_mushrooms.htm as an example, was a kit for making magic mushrooms that would do around a kilo (125 doses) for $40. ($0.30)

      In an industrial setting, growing them, they are a tiny fraction of this price.

      It's not being done so they can be sold for 0.1 cent, not 3 cents per dose.
      It's being done so they can be sold for >>$100, not 3 cents per dose.

    15. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm looking forward to this - if they can provide psilocybin without the nasty stomach upset that comes with consuming raw mushrooms, count me in. I always get excited when I find a flush in the woods because I'm then migraine-and-cluster headache-free for the next 6-12 weeks. :)

    16. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The neighbors across from us mail ordered some "product" a couple of years ago. A day or so later my wife noticed a postal inspector car checking out that house. We live on a dead end street with little traffic so this vehicle stood out. Nothing further transpired, just sayin that the postal inspector may be keeping tabs on you.

    17. Re: Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self trepanation exists, so no drugs needed for that.

    18. Re:Woo hoo! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's not _that_ easy. If ergot fungus gets into the mix, it won't necessarily kill the mushrooms, but will make you sick as a dog or possibly kill you.

      Once you've grown the mycelium, growing the mushrooms is easy though.

      The market has pretty much solved the problem IMHO.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came here to point out how impoirtanty queazocotal s comment is!

    20. Re:Woo hoo! by mikael · · Score: 1

      Migraines and cluster headaches come from either tightening of blood vessels, high blood pressure due to being overweight (extra fat narrows blood vessels), or toxins in the blood stream. Sometimes eating out at somewhere different (friends house/party, cultural restaurant never been before). Could be different food proteins or biogenome. So it would seem relaxing blood vessels and allowing them to expand would reduce the pain.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    21. Re:Woo hoo! by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you got that, but none of it is actually true of migraine or cluster headaches.

      There are headaches associated with blood pressure problems but they are not migraine or cluster headaches.

    22. Re:Woo hoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried a close analog? I'm not mentioning any names, but they exist.

    23. Re:Woo hoo! by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Patents aside, clawing a drug back off of the DEA schedules (especially schedule I) is pretty much impossible and synthesizing a new compound is an easier prospect. For example, MDMA showed great promise in actual clinical studies for treating PTSD and was kept on schedule I (no medical use) against the advice of the entire medical community. The DEA does not like psychedelics at all.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    24. Re:Woo hoo! by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      That too, even trivial changes that do not meaningfully affect psychoactivity can be spun as being a significantly novel compound.

    25. Re:Woo hoo! by piojo · · Score: 1

      PMS may be a cultural symptom, not a biological one.

      I'll re-emphasize the bold text in that article: Just because something is a social construction does not mean we don’t experience it.

      If you have a problem and it's affecting your life enough that you feel you need a cure, then the causes are immaterial except where they're related to the cure. In this particular case, good luck coming up with a societal and psychological cure for PMS.

      Also, if you're thinking it's an anglo issue, you jumped the gun. PMS is a thing in China, though I don't know about the numbers.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
  6. Into E. COLI!? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    What the fuck is wrong with you people!? Splice it into brewer's yeast, not the fucking plague.

    1. Re:Into E. COLI!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E Coli is cheap and easy to grow. Hell you have it growing in your lower intestines..

      It's not like they did it with Ebola.

    2. Re:Into E. COLI!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most strains of E. coli are harmless anyway, and if I'm getting the right idea from Wikipedia the species is one of the standard choices for genetic manipulation. Plus, yeast is quite a bit more complex to deal with. I assume this sort of thing is easier with purely asexual bacteria, rather than yeast and its basic ability mate and mix genomes.

    3. Re:Into E. COLI!? by jandersen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Eschericia coli, as it is properly named, is a bacterium: a prokaryote, whereas yeast is a fungus: a eukaryote, which is massively more complicated. Eukaryotes are symbiotic organisms - they seem to have arisen from a symbiosis between archaea and bacteria; the nucleus seems more archaean, whereas mitchondria resemble bacteria. We still only know very little about the details of how it happened - we only know it happened at least twice, since plants have chloroplasts in addition to their mitochondria; those seem to be a kind of cyanobacteria.

    4. Re:Into E. COLI!? by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      E. coli is also a normal lower intestinal symbiont.

      Adding these genes to e. coli, and then shooting them up somebody's butt, would essentially make them high as a kite 24/7.

      That was the first thought I had actually-- thinking about people grabbing at invisible objects, and laughing hysterically, because they have the psilocybin equivalent of auto-brewery disorder.

    5. Re:Into E. COLI!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E. coli is also a normal lower intestinal symbiont.

      Adding these genes to e. coli, and then shooting them up somebody's butt, would essentially make them high as a kite 24/7.

      Where can I sign up?

    6. Re:Into E. COLI!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not really, actually the effect of drugs acting on the 5ht receptor subsides rapidly due to rapid tolerance build up. The effects will build-up until the drug concentration in plasma reaches peak, then will subside slowly.

    7. Re:Into E. COLI!? by mooterSkooter · · Score: 1

      That is actually pretty scary. Imagine all children being given this at birth in a small enough dose that it doesn't make them trip out. So now they have a permanent colony of these things and due to the tolerance will never be able to enjoy mushroom tripping again.
       

    8. Re:Into E. COLI!? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      That is actually pretty scary. Imagine all children being given this at birth in a small enough dose that it doesn't make them trip out. So now they have a permanent colony of these things and due to the tolerance will never be able to enjoy mushroom tripping again.

      Think about all the times in the past it has happened naturally and will never realize it because this has alreayd happened. How may drugs are coursing through our system that we have developed permanent immunity to?

  7. and probably safe by clovis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Plus, these is that psylocybin is considered to be among the safest recreational drugs.

    https://www.theguardian.com/so...
    https://www.globaldrugsurvey.c...
    Disclaimer: I'm aware that the globaldrugsurvey's methodology and conclusions has major, almost stupid problems, but their raw data does suggest that that the mushrooms are fairly safe.

  8. not at all required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Producing it via this method is not at all required to start using it therapeutically. The only reason they are going to such great lengths is so they can patent it and have monopoly "rights".

    More proof that our perverse "intellectual property" system is precisely what is making the perverse outcomes.

    1. Re: not at all required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a step up, even if that's the case. The current paradigm of neverending anti-depression treatments thay create dependency are not the right treatment for people who need the kind of one shot experiences that this, MDMA, and DMT to reorient them.

    2. Re:not at all required by jandersen · · Score: 2

      Producing it via this method is not at all required to start using it therapeutically. The only reason they are going to such great lengths is so they can patent it and have monopoly "rights".

      We already know how to produce it synthetically, so I doubt it is only about patenting the method; it is simply curiosity driven research into how a living organism produces a molecule. This is in itself valuable knowledge - many chemical pathways in biology are similar at least in parts, although they lead to wildly different end products.

    3. Re:not at all required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ultimate aim for synthesizing is not the molecule itself (though that is interesting), but rather finding derivatives that are more cost effective to make, haves a longer shelf life, less side effects, etc.

  9. good news for vermiculite stocks, around the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ;-)

  10. Re: good news for vermiculite stocks, around the w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta sterilize that stuff before you start...

  11. No breakthrough here by paiute · · Score: 2

    Psilocybin is a small achiral molecule which is easy to prepare synthetically. (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/np030059u). If we wanted to use it medicinally, the availability of the molecule would not be the limiting factor.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  12. Re:and probably safe (until concentrated) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It most likely is safe, now.
    But as with anything else, the desire for potency and pure concentration will eventually make overdose easy.

  13. "Medical" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol

  14. An advancement of epic proporiton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool, so now we know how they came up with the modern historical narratives, academics just trip on shrooms while ignoring that ancient Indian temple builders used giant lathes to machine huge stone pillars.

  15. Next up... by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Next on scientists' list: the ingredients to the eleven secret herbs and spices!

  16. human logic: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lets make magic mushrooms illegal so we could sell medicine

  17. organiculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather trust organic than synthetic product in all cases what comes to medical treatment.
    If this synthetic product gets immediate license for marketing it shows how corrupted system we have in medical industry.

    Fuck you !

  18. Yup, summary hype misguided by Wdi · · Score: 2

    As far as complexity of drug-like molecules is concerned, Psilocybin is really a trivial molecule where large-scale manufacturing in mushrooms or GM-yeast/bacteria would be waste of money. The paper identifies the reaction sequence and the involved enzymes, which is certainly interesting, but as absolutely ZERO applicability to any type of medical-grade commercial production.

  19. Challenging science by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    Guys, I think I perfected the pathway to create psilocybin via...aww man, my microscope melted again.

  20. Re:and probably safe (until concentrated) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is physically almost impossible, unless you can make it synthetically (possible, but very complex and certainly not cost effective, although this article points to a way of reproducing the biological process, which would be way cheaper once working). To overdose with mushrooms you need to take >10kg of dried mushroom in a few hours. There are easier ways to commit suicide.

  21. VR + shrooms by PatientZero · · Score: 1

    . . . in a sensory deprivation tank!

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  22. It might be safe by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    but unless you're mentally prepared for a full trip you'd better to just stick to say 1/2 gram of shrooms and have similar to weed high but less body/head stone and more of a semi mild perception high.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:It might be safe by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Sadly that doesn't explain all that much to me anyway since I haven't taken cannabis either.

    2. Re:It might be safe by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Headaches go away (so... between may and December I am migraine-free when I go foraging and eat on the spot), aromas and taste and colors become more intense. at 5g the room is spinning and I feel agitated- creeping malaise (creepy-crawly feeling) but stuff like grass and trees and woodgrain look like they're fluid. I invariably puke though - my stomach does not agree with shrooms. Totally worth it though - far better than suffering through 3+ migraines a week with occasional cluster headaches in between. If they offer this in tablets I'm in because I am sick of popping Imitrex all the time, since Imitrex is only mildly effective, while mushrooms totally prevent them for me. It'd be nice to be able to just pop a pill and not puke my guts out, and not have to search for mushrooms in the wood and eat on the spot (unlawful to collect and take home to eat, but lawful to consume on the spot).

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:It might be safe by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I go foraging and eat on the spot),

      How do you tell the difference? I've had mushrooms a couple of times, good high, no ill-effects, but I can't get past the fact that other mushrooms that look the same can kill you. It's an awful lot of trust if you're relying on someone else to pick them for you (and don't know what to look for yourself).

    4. Re:It might be safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regular users grow their own for just that reason. There are many resources online for grow-your-own psilocybin mushrooms, which is exactly what I would do if I suffered from cluster headaches. However, I don't have children at home so I don't have that risk factor.

  23. Tryptophan by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tryptophan isn't "wrongly" said to make you sleepy - it does make you sleepy. The myth is that it's tryptophan to blame when Americans get sleepy after a Thanksgiving feast, when in reality most of the blame lies on the mass consumption of carbohydrates. Turkey is no more tryptophan-rich than many other meats, such as chicken.

    --
    Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
    1. Re:Tryptophan by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that one drives me crazy. "Sure, I ate 5000 calories, but the reason I'm sleepy is because of the turkey, which I ate in amounts only slightly larger than what I'd put in a sandwich on a normal day." Then there's other things, like the frequent drinking, the all-day activity, the travel, the time with relatives, all of which might make a person sleepy, depending.

  24. All I Remember About Shrooms... by Petersko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It has been nearly 20 years but shrooms turned me into the best possible movie audience member. I totally got whatever a director intended emotionally. Don'the ask me to put a caveat on it - shrooms were universally awesome for me. I absolutely understand why they would have therapeutic value.

  25. Scientist discovers this one weird trick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientist discovers this one weird trick for creating your own psychedelic shrooms, the results will shock you. Drug dealers hate him!

    1. Re:Scientist discovers this one weird trick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, now everyone will be building their own DNA/RNA genetics lab and modding every lifeform they can find to create synthetic psylocbin.

  26. I wonder what would happen by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

    ... if those modified E. Coli bacteria were ever released and came to populate the guts of certain mammals.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  27. I'll take it. by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Where do I send the money?

  28. Mapping the biological factory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Actually making psilocybin requires mapping the biological factory."

    Why do people write about a topic where they know so little, that statements like this don't immediately jump out at them as bullshit?

    4-HO-DMT is just one of a varied family of tryptamines that is trivial to synthesise, as many Chinese 'research chemical' suppliers know full well.

    And if you -really- want to phosphorylate psilocin into psilocybin, it's not that hard either, though nobody bothers because it'll be immediately oxidised back into psilocin in the body.

    1. Re:Mapping the biological factory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Actually making psilocybin requires mapping the biological factory."
      Why do people write about a topic where they know so little, that statements like this don't immediately jump out at them as bullshit?

      The article was about understanding how the fungus itself makes these compounds, not how we synthesize them - that's what was meant by 'biological factory'. Made perfect sense to me.

  29. So, how long until yeast makes psilocybin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Asking for a friend....

  30. I prefer magic mushrooms to LSD by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    Have not done either for decades, but pretty sure my preference would still stand today.

  31. "may finally lay the groundwork" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did it go from that to the head line "Scientists Finally Unlock the Recipe For Magic Mushrooms"?

  32. Simple DIY formula by PPH · · Score: 0

    Just mix ammonia and bleach.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  33. Dubious Medical Value by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    Not sure what kind of value we can get from this kind of hallucinogen. We have known about magic mushrooms since prehistoric times, and there was major experimentation with them in the 60s, but nothing good came of it, and aside from synesthesia and what amounts to waking dreams that you can't get out of, these things aren't useful to humanity in any real way.

    Probably one of the reasons that it took from 1968 to 2017 for someone to figure out how to synthesize the drug.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  34. Drumpfers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now das drumpfenkin can get a taste...

  35. Drugs... by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    Drugs we don't make and sell for 1000x profit are bad mmmkay? Mushrooms are evil. Now that we've figured out how to make them in our lab they are good though, and you should buy them from us. Only us.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  36. Why? Is this a step toward mind control? by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Why not just eat the mushrooms?
    It's probably much cheaper to grow them rather than go thru a tedious synthesis.

    And, isn't E.Coli bad for humans?

    I am thinking this is a step toward engineering a (tool) to control humans.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  37. actively change ... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    where i'm from thats called "being stuck in a trip" as in ... you dont snap out of it after tripping too hard ... its probably very scientific but it sounds somewhat weird to me that suddenly synthesized psylocibin would be acceptable whereas chewing on shrooms is illegal since even if, i don't think they get to predict how it affects people. thats why its "a trip" ... i havent had shrooms in probably over 20 years, i havent had anything but good old legal alcohol (which aint dreughs in years and years and years) but ... like the dude somewhere below : if it's okay then why not just eat the shrooms ? answer : $$$ , what else ... if its not regulated its not money, strange it takes so long to get weed out of the crimezone, considering all the tax that can be levied on it ?

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?