Interesting article RE yeast longevity

It seems some scientists have genetically modified a bakers yeast to live longer, essentially by changing a gene that stabilizes its rDNA. Damaged rDNA causes sells to stop dividing and has been linked to ageing. Interesting inits own right as research into ageing but I had a thought.
If living in high concentrations of its wastes kills off yeast, might not some percentage of that death be caused by ageing/rDNA damage from it's living conditions? If so, then making the same changes to other yeasts could increase things like temperature and alcohol tolerance, allowing for higher ABV brews.

Not being a scientist of any strip, I have no idea at all if it would work, but it is an interesting line of thought. Of course if it did, the yeast would be GMO and perhaps not good.

Would anyone here try to use a yeast like that?

The relevant link: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/g...ment-that-could-help-slow-human-ageing-2013-9

Unfortunately, the term GMO has a stigma attached to it. Many people don't realize that most of the vegetables we eat have been genetically modified by humans over centuries. We have selected for various traits we deem beneficial. Although when clever scientists discover a particular genetic mechanism and modify an organism in a day, oooohhh baaaad, shame. Except when said scientists discover a genetic mechanism behind colon cancer, exploit it and test in animals, hurrah healthy science.

When Sam Adams selected and adapted their yeast for brewing Utopias, they created a GMO yeast.

I have used recombinant yeast in the lab, even for test batches at home. It is not scary or dangerous, if you know what you are doing.

The ageing aspect of this research is amazing. We are still only skimming the surface of the impact of genetics, with both the implications and benefits of genetic modification.

Cross pollinating two varieties of corn together is not the same as injecting shark genes into a variety of corn. Claiming that traditional husbandry and selective seed-saving is the same as genetically modifying organisms is pretty disingenuous.

ong said:

Cross pollinating two varieties of corn together is not the same as injecting shark genes into a variety of corn.

Click to expand...

This is a straw-man argument, maybe you misunderstand the concept.

ong said:

Claiming that traditional husbandry and selective seed-saving is the same as genetically modifying organisms is pretty disingenuous.

Click to expand...

And this is ad hominem. What exactly was your point?

GMO: genetic modification of a living organism via biotechnology. That includes saving pollen and dispersing it at your will.

ColoHox said:

This is a straw-man argument, maybe you misunderstand the concept.

Click to expand...

haha...actually you used a strawman argument yourself....going on and on about how people view science negatively until it does something like cures colon cancer isn't an argument for why we should accept GMO food/organisms and the like. Its an argument of why we should look for favorably on science...hence the strawman.

What ong used was hyperbole, as it is a bit far-fetched to say that shark genes have been injected into corn (they have not, to my knowledge).

ColoHox said:

And this is ad hominem. What exactly was your point?

Click to expand...

No, an ad hominem is if ong argued his point by calling you a stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf-herder. A ad hominem is an attack towards you, not towards the argument itself (in this case he called it disingenous).

Maybe you misunderstand the concepts here?

ColoHox said:

GMO: genetic modification of a living organism via biotechnology. That includes saving pollen and dispersing it at your will.

Click to expand...

Your definition is correct, but ong was referring to the relative merits of the methods used to accomplish it (selection of favorable traits, versus incorporating of foreign DNA into a host genome). Again, another strawman on your part as nobody is disputing the definition of GMO.

broadbill said:

haha...actually you used a strawman argument yourself....going on and on about how people view science negatively until it does something like cures colon cancer isn't an argument for why we should accept GMO food/organisms and the like. Its an argument of why we should look for favorably on science...hence the strawman.

Click to expand...

I am using science as a verb, which would include genetic modification of plants and animals, not as a noun, which would be a generic and non-specific term. I am saying GMO in colon cancer = GMO in plants/animals, although the attitude is different.

broadbill said:

No, an ad hominem is if ong argued his point by calling you a stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf-herder. A ad hominem is an attack towards you, not towards the argument itself (in this case he called it disingenous).

Click to expand...

Disingenuous means insincere and unaware. As my argument was neither of those things, I only assumed he meant me. You say it is an attack towards me, and not the argument. Does that mean you are calling me an "it?"

broadbill said:

Your definition is correct, but ong was referring to the relative merits of the methods used to accomplish it (selection of favorable traits, versus incorporating of foreign DNA into a host genome). Again, another strawman on your part as nobody is disputing the definition of GMO.

Click to expand...

You are implying the incorporation of foreign DNA into a host genome is not meritous. See point #1. Disputing ong's definition of GMO is exactly what I am doing.

These debates are all good fun, I hope there are no around here.