• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Why hasn't genetic engineering been applied using psychedelics by now?

yaesutom

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 15, 2000
Messages
1,770
I've often wondered, why something like (just an example) the genes for psilocin hasn't been taken out and put into something like yeast, yet. Or anything similar.

I would think there's gotta be people *working* in a field doing genetic engineering, with access to the right stuff, that are into psychedelic drugs...

Obviously there's lots of chemists, people designing drugs, that know their shit and well heh sometimes use their school or work for non-work uses related to psychedelics..

I don't know that much about what some yeast could be capable of or anything else, but how difficult really is it to pull the right genes out of psilocybin mushrooms and insert them into *something else* that could produce a lot of psilocin/cybin a lot faster and/or easier? Or ergot fungus producing LSD?

I'm just curious why people haven't done this by now, maybe some have tried and failed who knows..

-----
Hmm but then again even though its known that you can add other tryptamines to the magic fungus and get 4-hydroxy-stuff out its rarely done even though thousands grow these things and are into psychedelics.. (shroomery?) (unfortunately I live somewhere/not in a position to do that right now or i would :( )
 
genetic engineering isnt That simple or cheap....it takes millions of dollars just to manipulate a few genes. for something like psylocibin, i dont think anyone has the money to finance that kind of operation.
 
yaesutom said:
I'm just curious why people haven't done this by now, maybe some have tried and failed who knows..

It is probably infinitely easier to just grow mushrooms than to manipulate the genes of another plant.
 
It doesn't take millions of dollars, but it certainly would be a bit of an issue. Moreover, you'd need access to the the illegal plants to isolate the genes in the first place...
 
They're not all fungi are they...

And what operations are you talking about cashtothemoney?
 
Part of the problem is that the biosynthesis of say, psilocybin from tryptophan, is a multi-step process requiring more than one enzyme. Since each enzyme is encoded for by a single gene, you would have to be cloning multiple genes into whatever recombinant species you're trying to engineer.

It's hard enough to clone a single gene from one species into another, especially if it codes for an enzyme. Often the neccessary cofactors, physiological conditions, etc, aren't present in the organism you're trying to engineer. Each additional enzyme that is required for a drug's biosynthesis further decreases the odds of the pathway being functional in its non-native host.
 
Maybe he means, attatching viral promoters to the genes that code for the enzymes, so you get massive over-expression... one mushroom being enough for 20 people.
 
BilZ0r said:
Maybe he means, attatching viral promoters to the genes that code for the enzymes, so you get massive over-expression... one mushroom being enough for 20 people.

Again, remember that we're talking about a multi-step biosynthetic pathway. You would have to overexpress all of the relevent enzymes, not just one. The system is only as fast as the slowest step, so increasing the amount of just one enzyme in the pathway won't cut it.
 
raybeez said:
Again, remember that we're talking about a multi-step biosynthetic pathway. You would have to overexpress all of the relevent enzymes, not just one. The system is only as fast as the slowest step, so increasing the amount of just one enzyme in the pathway won't cut it.

Indeed. Enzyme overexpression of the biosynthetic pathway one wishes to potentiate isn't overly difficult especially when the original enzyme-substrate relationship isn't severed. Psil. Yeasts on the other hand...would take some serious genetic modification.
 
I'm no expert, but I'm guessing the reasons are:

1.) These drugs are illegal, and in any event are certainly cheaper to manufacture the old-fashioned way, as aforementioned.

2.) There is a lot we don't know about biosynthetic pathways.

3.) Even though we've sequenced the genes of many organisms, there's a big difference between deciphering a genome and knowing exactly how it works.
One geneticist compared it to knowing the parts list for a fully-usable car (which we have), versus knowing how to put them together so that the car actually works (which we don't). My guess is that we won't be at the latter stage for decades, maybe even centuries.
 
Sequencers go for around $500,000. Then one would need a lab...high quality cultures...etc...

EDIT: I am NOT implying that I'm interested in any "operations" in any way shape or form.
 
raybeez said:
Again, remember that we're talking about a multi-step biosynthetic pathway. You would have to overexpress all of the relevent enzymes, not just one. The system is only as fast as the slowest step, so increasing the amount of just one enzyme in the pathway won't cut it.

This statement has been bugging me. While although it is correct, often there is a "rate-limiting" enzyme involved in the biological process. That is, there are sufficient quantities of the other enzymes in the particular biological process but one enzyme is particularly low (to keep things in check). One would not necessarily need to increase gene expression of all "relevant" enzymes in the particular biological process but simply alter the expression of this "rate-limiting" enzyme.

One example would be the synthesis of serotonin...vast quantities of it could be potentially produced but its production is kept in check w/ tryptophan hydroxylase, the rate-limiting enzyme...technically, one could get increased levels of serotonin by increasing expression of this one enzyme.

This holds promise for potentiation in most entheogens.

Although this isn't a scientific axiom, it does hold true for many/most biological processes.
 
Well as others have mentioned, the biosynthetic pathways for mescaline, psliocybin, LSAs, etc. are probably not well elucidated.

Probably the easiest way to genetically engineer a super-psychedelic organism would be to simply boost the production of the drug in the species in which it is naturally found. Then you wouldn't have to worry about all the components of the biosynthetic pathway being present; all you would need to do is overexpress the rate-limiting biosynthetic enzyme. Probably morning glory or HBWR would be the best candidate for this strategy, simply because they are most closely related to plant genetic models, and then San Pedro.
 
Top