7/7/2004: Blue roses
 

http://cellar.org/2004/blueroses.jpg

Blue roses. This was thought to be impossible until Suntory and Australian bio venture FlorigenePty, Ltd., figured it out. They took blue color pigment from blue flowers, and then used "recombinant DNA techniques" to add them to the roses. I put quotes around "recombinant DNA techniques" to say that I have no clue what that exactly entails, so if the caption writer got it wrong I got it wrong.

Back in the day there was some sort of CODE that went along with roses... where different colors had different specific meanings, like red for love, white for friendship, yellow for peeing yourself with excitement, and so forth. So what's blue? "I'd like you to join our group of zombies." I dunno.

Looks more like lavender blue......................dilly, dilly. :lol:

They could be "Thankyou for contributing to the cellar" roses.. they match our colours!!

"You take my breath away"

I'll go with "periwinkle."

:eyeball::eyeball::thumb:

we use to do that with daisies in grade school. after you cut them you put them in a glass of water with food color in it and the petals would turn what ever color you had in the water. I'm not impressed. :zzz:

I could be wrong about this, but I think recombinant DNA technology makes it so you don't have to wait for three days for the flowers to suck up the food coloring...

I have to chime in and say, these are lavender roses. I have seen natural roses close to this color. Show me navy blue, genetian blue, or sky blue, and I will be impressed. But mauvish purpley periwinkle roses are not press-release worthy. You've got to get the red out.

Visine gets the red out? :D

How unimpressive.

A little more info from Japan Today (July 1, 2004):

TOKYO — Suntory Ltd said Wednesday it has developed the world's first biotechnology-driven blue roses. In a project Suntory started in 1990 with its Australian bio-venture subsidiary Florigene Pty Ltd, researchers have been trying to develop blue roses by extracting blue-pigment genes from other plants, such as petunias, and implanting them into roses.

Suntory said it eventually succeeded in creating blue pigment in roses by implanting the gene that leads to the synthesis of blue pigment from pansies. Unlike roses created by using conventional breeding technologies, the roses developed in the Suntory project have almost 100% Delphinidin in their petals, which has made new and very different blue roses possible. (Kyodo News)

http://www.salambazar.com/umairsImages/blueRose.jpg

It still doesn't look blue and I'd be bummed if this were the culmination of 14 years of work. I wonder what it smells like.

It reminds me <i>The Glass Menagerie</i> by Tennessee Williams...

That's a pretty uncommon color for roses, I'd figure, no matter how they were grown. Normally all you see is white, pink and red, unless you frequent greenhouses that may have more. I saw some tangerine-y colored ones once at a greenhouse.

I'm with hermex though... show me some ultramarine blue roses and I'll want to know where I can get some. Love me some black roses too.

I think the point is the success of the genetic alteration. the color is nice to demonstrate it, but more important is the WAY they did it. that kind of freaks me out a little. i know theY genetically modify food, and i dont trust that.

[quote=Undertoad I have no clue what that exactly entails [/QUOTE]


jerking hand in the air and practically falling out of chair: OOH OOH, I know this one!!

i do this on a regular basis, the recombinant DNA stuff...except in animal cells not plants.

the generic version is taking a gene of interest from one organism, and putting it in the cells of another. in this example they took the dna that codes for making the blue pigment (the gene) out of flower A and put it in flower B's cells, so that flower B now makes it like it would have it's own pigment.

it's sort of like word processing where you just cut a sentance out of one book and paste it in another, but on a different scale. the language is the same, so the reader (the cells protein making machinery) just goes on translating the new stuff with the old (as if you were reading a paragraph with the new sentance inserted). because dna is dna is dna, the second organism doesn't 'know' that this new gene isn't one of it's own and just goes about tranlating it like all the rest if it's own genes. like a book though, you have to have the new word (or gene) be in context with the rest of the story or it won't make any sense (or, the new protein won't be made or expressed properly in the new organism). this is what takes so long, trying to get the new word (gene) to make sense (be properly translated into a good protein) with the rest of the story (the rest of the proteins in the organism).

there will be a quiz later, i hope you took notes :zzz:

why?

Isn't that how aids works? I heard it "writes itself" into the DNA and all subsequent RNA has the aids definition built in. I never knew what that meant/how that worked until your explanation (assuming I read it right).

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Bio...rdna/rdna.html

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/I...uage_rDNA.html

a couple of sites that don't use too much jargon to explain this, i'll try to find more better ones with prettier pictures :)

this is my passion BTW

Why not? (not being sarcastic - just asking the inverse question).

When someone alters the DNA of something, there could be unintended consequences. Problem is, layfolk like me and LJ don't have a high confidence level that a) they verified that the plant is an exact duplicate but for the intended change which has been verified as good or b) all unexpected changes aside from those intended have been "cleared."

For example: The much heralded zero fat "fat" Olestra. P&G spent decades perfecting it and assured everyone that it was perfectly fine. Problem is, it was found (by a watchdog) to be vitamin soluble (if that's the correct term). Olestra would absorb any vitamin it came into contact with in the digestive system and, as we all know, would exit the system taking all the nutrients right along with it. After Olestra was released into the marketplace, Proctor and Gamble was confronted with this info (I guess 20 years of research either didn't reveal this dificiency or P&G chose to ignore it - either way it was bad). Their simple solution was to pack it full of vitamins (saturate it) such that it couldn't absorb any more. But they had to be intimidated into doing that. And I'm supposed to trust these people?

Frankenfood is scary. You did see Attack of the Killer Tomatoes did you not? :)

If you've had McDonald's fries, you've et GE food, engineered to produce potatoes that are longer than the usual in order to fit into their fry holders and be easily eaten.

just a little mini-fact

yeah, that's what i was thinking. i don't trust MAN to figure out, in a few years, what it took evolution millions of years to perfect. there HAS to be something they've missed. but then, i'm a hippie weirdo, so.....

and you probably didn't know it, either. I think that's fucked up. they want to put warning labels on cd's that contain explicit lyrics, but there are no GMO labels on food that they sell you so that you can consume it, taking it into your own physical composition. They don't tell you. you wouldn't think to ask. much of the produce you buy at the supermarket is GMO. there are lawsuits against farmers who's crops cross polinate with GMO corn, for chrissakes. too many hands in the soup, if you ask me. why do we have to control every little detail? where's the harmony, people?!

not could be, usually are! thats why things for human consumption/use are SUPPOSED to be tested fully. the problem is, testing takes money and time, two things CEOs aren't willing to spend a whole lot of. so a lot of things that pass the 'good enough' tests really aren't FULLY tested.

it's not just layfolk, me too!!! for the very same reasons. i am very wary of some bioengeneered products, because we aren't allowed to test them in the way they should be, IN PEOPLE!! it's a catch22. (if i'm using that right) we use animals to test products/drugs/etc, as MODELS, with the assumption that the human body will react in the same way. however there are some very subtle differences in species that can result in very different outcomes when introduced to specific things. clinical trials are designed to do this for drugs, test them in people after they have been tested in animals. but they are very limited due to the fact that there are so many 'variations' of humans and clinical trials only have a few subjects which represent only a fraction of the possible types of metabolisms out there. but i'm getting off track

no :o

when i taught my undergrads as a grad student, and we were on the topic of biotechnology someone would always bring up how eating bioengeneered food could be harmful. so i explained it this way:

no matter what you are eating, carrot, pork chop, filet mignon, you are consuming (among other things) the dna of that thing. you have yet to turn green from your side salad, or sprout udders after cosuming a big mac, because the dna is degraded in your stomach.

human beings have been 'genetically engineering' food for as long as they have been around. we select two of the most proliferative tomato plants and cross pollinate them, so we get a whole batch of proliferative plants. then we take the most productive two from that batch and do it over. i did this for a summer when i worked for pioneer except we were criossing soybeans for their oil content. this is also BTW how natural selection works...only mother nature is doing the selecting.

Olestra, like pretty much all replacement fats and sugars is about the worst 'food' you can eat, all of that stuff is nasty and nearly all has well demonstrated side effects.

As for GE in general, it's a nice idea but the testing being done is nowhere near through enough, nowhere near long enough and the negative results seem to be being glossed over as minor hiccups. I have about as much faith in Monsanto being interested in the good of the public as Saddam being careful about huamn rights. Beyond that the whole thing is fucked up because companies can own genes, yet another example of how utterly screwed our entire IP system is becoming.

I understand the relationship between GE and natural selection but there is no way naturally a sequence from a cod is going to end up in a potato in one generation. It's not just enhancing natural selection, it's doing things that in no way could naturally occur, that's a fundamental difference.

Lobbiests in the US have your government so tightly by the balls the idea of labelling GM never was very trendy, over here people get seriously anal about it and it's helped spark off a major organic food movement as well, there are now massive selections of organic products in all major supermarkets. While there are questions about the requirements for some of the labelling people taking a stronger interest in the quality of their food can only be a good thing.

I wholeheartedly agree on both points. frankly i feel the main reason that there is genetic engeneering in food at all is because we are lazy. we want 1 food that is going to taste good, give us all the vitamins we need and not take up any room or money to produce so it's cheap and easy to fix. Sha Right. i am in science, and i do genetic engineering, but i am on the discovery side of things. I feel like we need to know FULLY how things work first before we start tinkering with them trying to make them 'better'.

Oh I know why it's being done, the profit motive is huge. Particularly monsanto who have created this funky synergy (argh, I can't beleive I just used that) between RoundUp and their GE crops that not only locks farmers into only using their seed but only their chemicals as well.

Sometimes I think the greatest problem with humanity is our willingness to trade quality for price.

I think the big difference (speaking as someone who hasn't set foot in a bio lab since ninth grade), is that when you cross tomatoes, you get tomato DNA + tomato DNA, which can basically only yield tomato DNA; you really are doing nothing different than nature has done for billions of years, or animals/people have done for millions.

However, when you want to put insulin production into your eggplants, or whatever (which is a totally cool goal, actually; the medical uses of GM seem a lot more worth the risk, to me), you're mixing eggplant DNA + pig insulin DNA. Which nature hasn't been doing, as far as I know. So, while you might be getting insulin just fine, there's no precedent for what else these two disparate DNA's will do together. Clearly, it's not the deoxyribonucleic acid itself that you're concerned about when you eat the GM food; it's the organism itself, and its products and byproducts.

Amen to that - I thought these things would be blue - not purple.

:mad2: i hate how all these pictures of new technology always show a smiling japanese girl! its so annoying!

I gotta tell ya.... that I love the Marillion reference!

Ssssh! You'll ruin it for the rest of us!

It's not just the genetic manipulation that is scary.

I'm personally much more concerned with the use of antibiotics. All the meat eaten in the US comes from animals who have been fed large quantities of antibiotics, whether they need it or not. It's understandable. The farmers want to have healthy animals. Healthy animals are bigger, and have more meat on them. A sick animal may even die. Dead and sickly animals cost the farmer money. A nice plump chicken looks more appealing to the consumer in the store than a skinny sickly looking one.

Only problem is that there are traces of antibiotics left in the meat once we start eating them. Overuse of antibiotics allows germs to get stronger. The weak bacteria die from the antibiotic, and the strong ones live and have children.

The country is basically conducting a strain improvement program on its bacteria. Breeding the bacteria to be more resistant to antibiotics. The antibacterial soap and everything else only makes it worse.

If I were dictator, I would forbid the use of antibiotics in animals. They should only be for human use, under close scrutiny by a doctor.

right. talk about fucking with the primordial ooze.....

You're right glatt. It's a similar syndrome to hospitals - all the drugs help breed some really nasty little fuckers that will make SARS (which was blown out of all proportion anyway) look like nothing. In short, we eat shit.

There is always this little voice in the back of my head that occasionally reminds me I might quite easily have eaten BCE meat when I lived in England (which means I can't give blood for about 30 odd years) and won't know about it for another 20 or so.

I'm holding out for cobalt blue myself. My mom had a rose bush many years ago that bloomed this color exactly. Runty plant, one bloom per season, but it was that color. I've always heard when you buy rose bushes you're getting the rejects from the breeders unless you paid big bucks. Hmmmmm. :3eye:

But now, in the English courses of the future, the poor children, inundated with blue roses, won't know what the hell Laura and Jim are talking about, just as we're not quite sure what in blazes pleurosis is.

Every time I think of The Glass Menagerie, I keep thinking of that sketch from The State that features the US men's bikini thong roller blading team.

When I saw these I immediately thought of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me.

Nice, but I also think they are more purple than blue. It could be just the way they come up in the photos, though.

Welcome to the Cellar, Albamoss. :)
Poems will start;
Roses are blue,
Violets are too, :haha:

This is the poetry police, you're under arrest for 1 class grevious bodily harm of the english language, step away from the keyboard and keep your hands where we can see them.

You just have to wait the several weeks for them to sprout, grow, and bloom! :)

Fine, xoxoxoBruce, just hide behind a handle impossible to implement into a poem. what the hell kind of meter is /u/u/u/ anyway? It's just not fair. ;)

I chose it, specifically to be poem proof, at least good poem proof. :blunt:

there once was a bruce with some letters
left aspiring poets in fetters
seasoned cellarites failed
but a lurker prevailed
and he earned the respect of his betters

Well, yeah...but you have to do that with the flowers that you cut and put into food coloring, too. :3eye:

Applause, applause, applause. :p
Betters? Not around here.

Another, and much cooler, example of cutting and pasting DNA from one organism to another is Glofish Glofish. Glofish are zebrafish(1) that have had a fluorescent gene from jellyfish pasted into their DNA.

As far as the ethical concerns for GM organisms goes, I tend to think that Montesano is overstepping our knowledge of how organisms actually work, the redundancy built into organisms to allow reproduction after damage, and the fact that plant DNA is damaged in the field by pollution and UV light from the sun. GM is going to be given a bad name by these early trials with supposedly sterile plants, because they're trying to do more than add a single protein into the plants; they're messing with things that aren't understood yet. In terms of glofish and purple roses, however, I don't think there's much (if any) harm that they could do since they're genetically nearly the same as non-GM organisms, but slightly less competitive in the wild due to the extra protein they are making.

[edit: Making the link work]

a few letters from tic-tac-toe
tacked in front of a name that you know
has great dodads to share
but no shelf space to spare
still his collection continues to grow!

nah, just a couple hours. anyone with celery at home can try this...or, go buy a light colored carnation. with the celery, use the pieces in the middle with the leaves, cut the bottom off and immediately stick it in a cup with some food coloring in water. obviously fresh celery works best. post your prettiest in the images thread. try putting in 1 color for and hour, than another etc. turns out neat! if i had a dig camera, i 'd show you. carnation works the same. cut the stem right before putting it in the food coloring and *whalah* streaked flowers. again, try different colors if you want.

the plants take up the food coloring with the water as it transpires out of the leaves. cut the celery stalk perpendicularly [ ( ( ( shapes ] then note the little colored dots...these are the water transporting xylem of the plant, now stained by the food coloring.

i think he meant that in order to HAVE the flowers to put in the cup, they have to (take a couple of weeks)grow, too, yes?

you'd better say it. i can't decide if it's gonna be a hippie weirdo crack, or an evolution/creator correction. probably the latter, but.....I don't know if you are christian this week or pagan, or what.

Just in case anyone missed that... :D

A MAN NAMED XOXOXOBRUCE
thought that his name did not ryhme
then this poem showed, in time
itself an oh, so, ipso facto truce.

yeah, i know its a stretch

So I'm browsing Mike's List and what do I find?...

Ho, Hum. Another 3-Megapixel Camera Phone

http://english.chosun.com/media/phot...7110024_01.jpg
Samsung launched this 3-megapixel camera phone, called the SPH-2300, Sunday [July 11, 2004]. Unlike other camera phones, this one looks as much like a camera as does like a phone. (Girl with acne not included.) Casio shipped its 3-megapixel camera phone last month.

OK. So how long does it take to e-mail a 3 megapixel image over the cell phone? Like a day or something? Or are they improving the infrastructure too?

Or am I just not getting it? Are you supposed to take it home and put the card in your card reader?

I think you can take a low-res image to transmit over the phone, or a high-res image to take home.