Interesting article RE yeast longevity - Home Brew Forums
Register Now For Free!

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > Fermentation & Yeast > Interesting article RE yeast longevity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-10-2013, 12:16 AM   #1
BradTheGeek
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
Recipes 
 
Aug 2013
Posts: 151
Liked 8 Times on 8 Posts



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/ge...-ageing-2013-9

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 05:05 PM   #2
ColoHox
Compulsive Hand Washer
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
 
ColoHox's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Oct 2011
Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 1,884
Liked 415 Times on 293 Posts


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.
__________________
Bacteria are the only culture some people have.

merline Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 05:09 PM   #3
ong
Recipes 
 
May 2012
Portland, OR
Posts: 1,276
Liked 234 Times on 187 Posts


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.
__________________
Oregonians: trade canned goods, homebrew, fresh produce, and more at chowswap.org!

broadbill Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 05:39 PM   #4
ColoHox
Compulsive Hand Washer
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
 
ColoHox's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Oct 2011
Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 1,884
Liked 415 Times on 293 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by ong View Post
Cross pollinating two varieties of corn together is not the same as injecting shark genes into a variety of corn.
This is a straw-man argument, maybe you misunderstand the concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ong View Post
Claiming that traditional husbandry and selective seed-saving is the same as genetically modifying organisms is pretty disingenuous.
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.
__________________
Bacteria are the only culture some people have.

stoneBriar Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 07:37 PM   #5
broadbill
Recipes 
 
Aug 2007
Southern Maine
Posts: 3,935
Liked 534 Times on 361 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoHox View Post
This is a straw-man argument, maybe you misunderstand the concept.
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoHox View Post
And this is ad hominem. What exactly was your point?
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoHox View Post
GMO: genetic modification of a living organism via biotechnology. That includes saving pollen and dispersing it at your will.
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.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 08:28 PM   #6
ColoHox
Compulsive Hand Washer
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
 
ColoHox's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Oct 2011
Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 1,884
Liked 415 Times on 293 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbill View Post
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.
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbill View Post
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).
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?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbill View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Bacteria are the only culture some people have.

Reason: more words

 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 01:41 AM   #7
Calichusetts
 
Calichusetts's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Nov 2011
Plymouth, MA
Posts: 3,015
Liked 501 Times on 301 Posts



ColoHox Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting article timduncan200021 General Beer Discussion 5 03-16-2013 05:02 PM
Interesting Article.... Hoppin_Mad General Beer Discussion 15 03-31-2011 10:05 PM
Interesting Article on Lager yeast origin(s) niquejim Recipes/Ingredients 4 09-12-2008 08:18 PM
Interesting Article John Beere General Beer Discussion 3 08-29-2007 08:08 PM
Interesting article... Rhoobarb General Beer Discussion 1 09-30-2005 09:09 PM


Forum Jump