Where's the GMO Marijuana Strains?

Discussion in 'Medical Marijuana News' started by Finshaggy, Aug 11, 2017.


    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    Here are some things to look up:
    Norman Borlaug
    Craig Venter
    Digital Biological Converter
    Biological Teleportation
    Gene Gun
    Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer
    S.M.A.R.T. Breeding

    An example of how simple it can be is that Yeast DNA can be altered simply by exposing the Yeast to UV Light.

    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    Also, if you like cut a hole with a razorblade in the trunk of a plant, and the kill a bunch of glow bugs and rub their juice in the wound. Then like water the plant with 50/50 glow bug juice and water. Then stick electric diodes into the wet soil, and connect some to the plant at an in and out point at a distance in the plant, then hook up a car battery; it is possible to get the glow bug DNA into the plant. And who knows what would happen, but it could glow. You could also add genetics from a plant that glows.

    Glowing isn't a guarantee, but it could get the Genetics in there.

    dstroy Well-Known Member

    luckybleu, ThcGuy, Singlemalt and 3 others like this.

    srh88 Well-Known Member

    well... the weird chemicals he takes everyday finally took over, we lost him


    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    Marijuana doesn't have any relatives close enough to make crosses like Ligers or Tigons, or Mules, or Zebra Horses, or the mixes they make with Lilys or lilacs or whatever it is with the big white flowers or hanging flowers and there are lots of varieties. They are like big elegant type flowers. There are tons of crosses of those.

    These are called Intergenetic Hybrids, Inter"genus" hybrids, like an "inter"state. So since Marijuana doesn't have any relatives for that, the next best thing is Electroportation.

    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    Say we mix in Maple Genetics. it could add some kind of THC sap type Genetics and stronger branches and trunk.

    tyler.durden Well-Known Member

    I wonder which section the mods will move this thread to...
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
    dangledo, J2M3S, Bob Zmuda and 7 others like this.

    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    And I could totally probably talk to the geneticists and see if they could do this part. I bet they hadn't even thought about this, and maybe they are ethically against it. But they could identify the exact maple Genetics and would know at which stage to add it (it would probably actually be better to do it to a group of freshly germinated seedlings before transplant or something). But this isn't a long time off.

    srh88 Well-Known Member

    luckybleu, J2M3S, ThcGuy and 8 others like this.

    lokie Well-Known Member


    tyler.durden Well-Known Member


    chemphlegm Well-Known Member

    agrobacterium is found in trees. the time and place of infection, as well as more agrobac genes are marked on infected trees by a swollen ring/ball usually on the main trunk. This is used as a vector to introduce new sets of dna.
    glowing insect goo will likely not work the way you describe. this protein is used with agrobacterium to fluoresce in plant dna;

    The green fluorescent protein (GFP) is a protein composed of 238 amino acid residues (26.9 kDa) that exhibits bright green fluorescence when exposed to light in the blue to ultraviolet range.[2][3] Although many other marine organisms have similar green fluorescent proteins, GFP traditionally refers to the protein first isolated from the jellyfish Aequorea victoria. The GFP from A. victoria has a major excitation peak at a wavelength of 395 nm and a minor one at 475 nm. Its emission peak is at 509 nm, which is in the lower green portion of the visible spectrum. The fluorescence quantum yield (QY) of GFP is 0.79. The GFP from the sea pansy (Renilla reniformis) has a single major excitation peak at 498 nm. GFP makes for an excellent tool in many forms of biology due to its ability to form internal chromophore without requiring any accessory cofactors, gene products, or enzymes / substrates other than molecular oxygen.[4]

    In cell and molecular biology, the GFP gene is frequently used as a reporter of expression.[5] It has been used in modified forms to make biosensors, and many animals have been created that express GFP, which demonstrates a proof of concept that a gene can be expressed throughout a given organism, in selected organs, or in cells of interest. GFP can be introduced into animals or other species through transgenic techniques, and maintained in their genome and that of their offspring. To date, GFP has been expressed in many species, including bacteria, yeasts, fungi, fish and mammals, including in human cells. Scientists Roger Y. Tsien, Osamu Shimomura, and Martin Chalfie were awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry on 10 October 2008 for their discovery and development of the green fluorescent protein. wiki

    an infected marijuana plant will look exactly like this


    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    Or what if Marijuana could be made into a perineal vine?

    srh88 Well-Known Member


    srh88 Well-Known Member


    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    Completely relevant and useful to any readers. Awesome.

    This is the future.
    chemphlegm likes this.

    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    You could also probably use fruits and flowers, saps, and animal glands, poisons/venom, blood, etc.

    pabloesqobar Well-Known Member

    You are the future. Of a 3rd lawsuit to be laughed out of Court.
    cannabineer, ThcGuy, srh88 and 3 others like this.

    ANC Well-Known Member

    You should cross it with a goldfish, they produce ethanol through their gills to survive frozen ponds.
    This way you can get stoned and pissed at the same time while you hibernate.
    srh88, Singlemalt and ThcGuy like this.

    Finshaggy Well-Known Member

    Sasha Shulgin's words on Structure Activity Relationship (SAR):

    There is a sadness felt with most of the published efforts to form sweeping correlations between the structure of a molecule and its biological activity. This relationship is called a SAR, or a Structure Activity Relationship, and there are journals that are dedicated to just this form of analysis.

    One needs a large collection of compounds of known structure, and all of them must be of known pharmacological activity. And one needs a computer of some sort. One considers all aspects of the structure such as bond energies, electronic charge densities, molecular lengths, widths and thicknesses, degrees of freedom or of constraint, anything that can be calculated or measured. Then one assigns an independent variable coefficient to everything, constructs some additive equation where these coefficients equal something else, and then compares that something else to the biological activity. Push the "go" button on the computer, and let everything be varied clear across the map, until the calculated solution of the equation makes the best match with the value of pharmacological activity. Then one has a SAR with a statistical measure of goodness of fit, and it then can be used to predict the activity of new structures, which are yet untried, pharmacologically.

    And there is the essence of why this entire process is ineffective. Prediction is the heart of this procedure, and prediction is never brought to bear. Let us take a new structure that is not in the original collection of structures, and let us make a prediction as to its, let us say, psychedelic potency. But no one ever tries it out for any of a number of reasons. Maybe the new compound is never synthesized. Or maybe it is synthesized, but never evaluated pharmacologically. The synthesist does not care, or is uninterested, or is restrained by the legal complications that might ensue. Or he does explore it, but chooses not to publish. Almost never is a prediction tested. What is more likely to happen, is that a new input of biological activity and structure variation is uncovered (for which there is no published prediction) and this data is tossed into the mill, and a new set of "more valid" coefficients is calculated, and the SAR becomes touted as a more accurate predictor. But, always remember, that without prediction and challenge, there is no inventive value from the SAR game. It simply organizes what is known, but creates nothing new.

    This is a role that I would have loved to see a,N,O-TMS play. At the time of its first synthesis its biological activity was, by definition, completely unknown. Let's cast its shadow up against the structures that were known, and with known activity. What would you predict? The most logical archetype to use as a starting point is the primary amine homologue, a,O-DMS. This is an extremely potent, quite long-lived tryptamine that still ranks up there as the most potent, or nearly so, of all the simple substituted tryptamines. It is orally active. It lasts for many hours. It is completely wild as to visual distortions and illusions. It consistently leads to dramatic, perhaps frightening, but certainly memorable dreams. Three or four milligrams are unmistakably adequate. I would have loved to have had an SAR jock predict what changes would come from the simple addition of an N-methyl group. No one out there predicted this for me, and I have now completely abandoned the art of prediction, at least via the SAR technique. My motto is, make 'em, and taste 'em.

    To base structures that are stimulants (amphetamine, for example) an added N-methyl group enhances potency and richness. With MDA, for example, one gets MDMA, not more potent, but of an entirely different form of psychological magic. However, with all the other explored primary amine phenethylamine psychedelics, the potency and the quality of action are effectively lost. With tryptamines, however, the N-methyl groups appear to be needed for full, robust activity. Here, the loss of an N-methyl group might well detract from full potency, and the final unmethylated product (DMT becoming simply tryptamine) will be relatively weak and uninteresting. If a,N,O-TMS had been active at one milligram, then the MDMA explanation is obviously correct. If a,N,O-TMS had been active only at a meager level of twenty milligrams, then the DMT explanation would appear to be correct. It is much less active. It is not spectacular. All you SAR scientists, take this new data, toss it into the maws of computer calculation, and come out with better coefficients.

    With this, now, as a challenge, predict for me the potency of a,N,N,O-tetramethylserotonin. Here is a compound that has not been yet synthesized, but which carries the second N-methyl group (yet closer to DMT at the nitrogen atom and probably more potent) and yet a structural kiss of death (as to potency) in the MDA/MDMA world. Will it be up? Will it be down? I am afraid that the "make 'em and taste 'em" procedure is the only one that I can trust.

    Good luck.

    Sasha Shulgin's Words on Syllogism and Pharmacology:

    What is the train of thought that leads from the structure of a known compound (which is active) to the structure of an unknown one (which may or may not be active)? Certainly the extrapolations involve many what-if's and maybe's. The path can be humorous, it certainly can be tortuous, and it often calls for special things such as faith, insight, and intuition. But can one say that it is logical?

    Logic is a tricky thing to evaluate. One of the earliest approaches was laid down by Aristotle, in the form of the syllogism. In it there are three lines consisting of two premises and a conclusion, a form that is called a "mood." All are statements of relationships and, if the premises are true, there are only certain conclusions that may logically follow. For example:

    Every man is a lover.

    Every chemist is a man.

    Therefore, every chemist is a lover.

    Letting lover be the major term "a" and letting chemist be the minor term "b" and letting man be the middle term "m", this reduces to:

    Every m is a,

    Every b is m.

    Therefore, every b is a

    and it is a valid mood called Barbara.

    Of the 256 possible combinations of all's and some's and none's and are's and are-not's, only 24 moods are valid. The reasoning here with MDPH goes:

    Some stimulants when given a methylenedioxy ring are MDMA-like.

    Some ring-unsubstituted 1,1-dimethylphenylethylamines are stimulants.

    Therefore, some ring-unsubstituted 1,1-dimethylphenylethyl

    amines when given a methylenedioxy ring are MDMA-like.

    In symbolic form this is:

    Some m is a, and

    Some b is m, then

    Some b is a

    and this is not one of the 24 valid moods. Given the first premise as some m is a, there is only one valid syllogism form that can follow, and this is known as Disamis, or:

    Some m is a, and

    Every m is b, then

    Some b is a

    which translates as:

    Some stimulants when given a methylenedioxy group are MDMA-like.

    Every stimulant is a ring-unsubstituted 1,1-dimethylphenyl ethylamine.

    Therefore, some ring-unsubstituted 1,1-dimethylphenylethyl

    amines when given a methylenedioxy group are MDMA-like.

    The conclusion is the same. But the second premise is false so the entire reasoning is illogical. What is the false second premise? It is not a fact that every stimulant is a fentermine. There are lots of stimulants that are not phentermines.

    So much for applying syllogistics to pharmacology.

Share This Page