Scientists Find the Gene that Produces THC

Okay, further on this:

The paper is here: http://geo.cbs.umn.edu/MarksEtAl2009.pdf

You can also see how extremely complicated the biosynthetic pathway of THC is.

The gene they isolated, aside from two other genes previously isolated and well known, is a CHS-like enzyme. The lab failed to show it (or any of the other enzymes) produced olivetolic acid, the biochemical precursor of THC. The reason given is, as in many previous experiments from other papers for the past decade, that the conditions of the reaction were not correct to yield the proper product.

There's also a glaring error in the biosynthetic pathway, acyl-CoAs do NOT have some weird -O-S-C bond.

Everything is pretty by the books although the enzyme reactions are kind of strange, they use really high amounts of Malonyl-CoA.
 
Yeah, some where in the future there will be a law that all vegetables must contain at least 15 % THC.
 
Wave Jumper said:
Yes, but is that really an issue? It's not like you're gonna need to smoke gigantic amounts of pot to get high of some organic weed with a more moderate THC percentage.

Besides, I always thought that it's very unlikely that you'll get cancer due to smoking pot. In fact I think that it's more likely that cannabis has an anticarcinogenic effect (if used in moderation), but I guess some studies need to be done...




Yes and no. For me, organically grown weed can't be strong enough.

But the thing is that weed is curently stronger due to usage of chemical substances (growth stimulators and so on) and this also has an impact on your health (smoking those residues can't be healthy). Organic weed will never be as strong as the stuff they are currently still selling in coffee shops.

The same thing happens with our food: vegetables are being sprayed with pesticides, cows are given hormones and antibiotics and so on. The ganja you find in coffee shops is not a natural product and I notice that when I smoke it.
So it's not simply the fact that it is too strong, it's also the fact that it's impure!
And nobody is actually controlling it, no one has determined an acceptable residue limit, so those illegal growers can do what they want.




Yes, I'm trying to do that. The difference is that if the weed was organically grown you might be able to smoke a joint, but nowadays that seem crazy, because the THC % is just too high. Therefor I believe it's recommended to use a pipe or other smoking device so you can inhale little amounts.
Click to expand...

are you in the netherlands man?

I noticed you mentioned the coffees , and i kinda agree i always buy the strongest weed (like white widow) however i have come across "fireworks" weed that sparked and fizzed when smoked due to residues (these kind of residues can be avoided by buying in a good shop like the mazzelaar in the hague) however for the heavy metals i think they will be present even in bio weed since cow poop contains stuff like lead and cadmium just like annything else that has passed trough the body of a big herbivore.


so for the moment the best solution is a compromise between high grade of thc (strains like WW , JACK , PP) and weed grown and cured right (bio weed)
 
nuke said:
There should be a lot of genes that produce THC, it's not a small biosynthetic pathway. Nor should it be hard to knock out.
Click to expand...

I don't think they have actually found a gene directly involved in THC synthesis, they found a gene/genes that promote(s) the formation of trichomes.

Publishing in the Journal of Experimental Botany, the researchers note that they specifically targeted the genes responsible for generating the drug-filled hairs highlighted in many a High Times photo spread. By impairing or encouraging the growth of those hairs, scientists could gain precise control over the level of THC in the crop.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with Wave Jumper - I am not interested in smoking genetically-modified weed.
I was actually really surprised that so many people jumped on his/her back for saying that.

"We want the strongest weed available, and we don't care if it has been genetically manipulated by pharmaceutical companies for their financial benefit or is 40 times stronger than would ever be possible in nature!"

Sounds dubious to me.

As for the whole "stronger = less carcinogenic" argument, it's not really that simple.
For example, anyone who vaporizes their weed doesn't have to worry about that at all.
Even smoked weed has not been shown to cause cancer, but rather is more likely to prevent cancer, due to the anti-carcinogenic effects of the THC (or other chemicals).
The stuff they have at coffee shops is already too strong for me - a single hit knocked me off my ass. So I am really not interested in getting anything stronger.

But what really disappointed me was the apparent anger and derision with which those people attacked Wave Jumper. S/he is just a person expression his/her views, but the attackers seemed to get really upset. Instead of saying that they didn't agree, they tried to say that Wave Jumper was wrong. But we know so little about GMOs, and it made the attackers look scared, more than anything else. They tried to show that they know more about science than Wave Jumper, and thereby discredit what s/he said, but nobody really knows about GMOs yet.
Lame.
Let's remember that we need to stick together and support each other here, since "out there" nearly everyone is against the freedom to use drugs to expand our minds.
Let's stop the small-minded attacks, and try for some constructive debate and discussion instead.
 
Ason Unique said:
Hairs, are they referring to pistils? They don't really have much THC.

I guess trichomes are like little hairs too.
Click to expand...

No, see how they say "drug filled hairs". It must be the trichomes cause that's where the drugs is.......
 
ranunky said:
I don't think they have actually found a gene directly involved in THC synthesis, they found a gene/genes that promote(s) the formation of trichomes.
Click to expand...

None of the experimental data in the paper actually supports that as far as I can tell. From a knockout study of arabidopsis thaliana it's know that interference with with genes similar to the ones specified herein are important to plant fertility and correct anatomical formation of the plant sex organs, but the exact physiological consequence of the removal of this gene in cannabis is not currently known.
 
nuke said:
None of the experimental data in the paper actually supports that as far as I can tell. From a knockout study of arabidopsis thaliana it's know that interference with with genes similar to the ones specified herein are important to plant fertility and correct anatomical formation of the plant sex organs, but the exact physiological consequence of the removal of this gene in cannabis is not currently known.
Click to expand...

what'S the name of the knockout study you refer to? And what's the name of the paper in question in the news article??
 
ranunky said:
what'S the name of the knockout study you refer to? And what's the name of the paper in question in the news article??
Click to expand...

The THC chalcone synthase-like enzyme paper that the news article reported on is linked to on the previous page.

Apparently the A. Thaliana paper I referred to may also not exist, there were some knockout studies of other parts of the pathway, with the bottom one being the one I believe I'm referencing:

Dobritsa AA et al. "CYP704B1 is a Long-chain Fatty Acid {omega}-Hydroxylase Essential for Sporopollenin Synthesis in Pollen of Arabidopsis thaliana." Plant Physiol. 2009 Aug 21.

de Azevedo Souza C et al. "A novel fatty Acyl-CoA Synthetase is required for pollen development and sporopollenin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis." Plant Cell. 2009 Feb;21(2):507-25. Epub 2009

My guess is that the delta-9-THC is produced as a defense mechanism against microbial invaders of many sorts and doesn't really have much to do with anything structural. A similar parallel could be drawn to kavalactones in P. Methysticum in which the compounds are produced throughout the plant and have apparently inhibit the growth of other plants/fungi.
 
nuke said:
The THC chalcone synthase-like enzyme paper that the news article reported on is linked to on the previous page.

Apparently the A. Thaliana paper I referred to may also not exist, there were some knockout studies of other parts of the pathway, with the bottom one being the one I believe I'm referencing:

Dobritsa AA et al. "CYP704B1 is a Long-chain Fatty Acid {omega}-Hydroxylase Essential for Sporopollenin Synthesis in Pollen of Arabidopsis thaliana." Plant Physiol. 2009 Aug 21.

de Azevedo Souza C et al. "A novel fatty Acyl-CoA Synthetase is required for pollen development and sporopollenin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis." Plant Cell. 2009 Feb;21(2):507-25. Epub 2009

My guess is that the delta-9-THC is produced as a defense mechanism against microbial invaders of many sorts and doesn't really have much to do with anything structural. A similar parallel could be drawn to kavalactones in P. Methysticum in which the compounds are produced throughout the plant and have apparently inhibit the growth of other plants/fungi.
Click to expand...


I think I once read that they thought this(or was it about insect defense?), or perhaps it is a defense against the sun and/or heat, which is the reason that perhaps the most potent plants (nothing about strain) were found outdoors, covered in thick sticky trichromes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top