Science desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	November 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 31

Genetic testing on plants.

Don't anyone do genetic testing on plants? Would it be easy to genetically change the color of leaves? Say, leaves can already be red yellow and dark purple, can trees be genetically altered to produce those colors year-round? But then, let's say there are no naturally colored blue leaves. Can blue genes say, from the fur of a blue-colored animal, or blue colored flower petal, be used to make the leaves of a tree be blue? The only genetic testing I have heard of, was some plants have been genetically altered to produce fluorescence. This happened when I asked a plant professor can any plants produce light, he said the ones that can naturally fluoresce, are not bright enough for the human eye to see, so some plants have genetically modified to produce brighter. So, I imagine genetic testing on plants are more legal than on animals, anyone have any feedback for vegetables/fruits? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Genetically engineering plants is a major field of human endeavor, but aside from making a blue rose I have not heard of much effort being expended on purely aesthetic modifications. Abductive (reasoning) 03:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also, can random probabilities be distributed? For example, a tree with 4 gene colored leaves, red blue green purple, but each leaf has a 1/4th relatively random probability of each color. That would be dope! 67.165.185.178 (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Epigenetic variations may determine phenotypical aspects such as leaf colour. In fact, the cell differentiation in higher organism, in which some cells become neurons and others muscle cells, is an example of local epigenetic variation. The discovery of a genetic switch controlling Streptococcus pneumoniae that allows the bacterium to randomly change its characteristics would appear to imply that random leaf colours or similar random local phenotypical variations are theoretically possible. Human fingerprint patterns may be a somewhat unspectacular example, but the situation is unclear. Perhaps some Turing patterns and variegated animal coloration are also be due to local random epigenetic variations. --Lambiam 09:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant research paper: "Integument pattern formation involves genetic and epigenetic controls: feather arrays simulated by digital hormone models". --Lambiam 09:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic modification has been done for millenia on both plants and animals. Cross-breeding, inbreeding, etc. are all artificial selection using the genetics the organisms already have. If the OP is talking about lab-based genetic modification, that's where the law might come into the picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, artificial selection (aka "breeding") is unregulated, and has been done by humans since before recorded history (see Neolithic Revolution). In terms of laboratory-modified organisms, what is usually called "GMO"s or genetically modified organisms, many countries have a type of ethics committee which must review all GMO-based research, in the U.S. this is called an Institutional Biosafety Committee, which reviews all prospective genetic modification experiments. There is required, by US law, to be an IBC at any institution carrying out such research, whether academic, governmental, or private. Genetic modification of plants is an active area of research, but it is carefully regulated. --Jayron 32 15:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The green color of most plant's leaves derives from chlorophyll, which is an essential part of the plant's metabolism. I don't think it would be as easy to change leaf color as it is to change, for example, flower color, without impacting the viability of the plant. Green leaves change color in the autumn because they're dying. CodeTalker (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One year I planted some beans, and 2 or 3 of them came up out of the ground, completely white. Obviously they didn't survive very long, once they exhausted the nutrients inside the original beans. There is a simple explanation for that. A green leaf reflects green and absorbs red and blue light, converting it into energy the plant can use. So a white plant reflecting everything cannot sustain itself. But a plant that is a darker color, for instance purple like some coleuses or red cabbage are, will absorb more green and less blue and red, and will sustain itself. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of plants have leaves of colors other than green. Tradescantia pallida, Tinantia pringlei, some cultivars of Japanese maple and of Begonia and of ti plants, for examples. Many of these plants still have chlorophyll, but there are additional compounds in the leaves that lead to the other colors. --Jayron 32 18:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are due to the red/blue/purple colors of anthocyanins. Note that these chemicals change from reddish to bluish based on pH.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for a really blue plant see Eryngium ovinum.[1] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about changing the color of say, strawberries or raspberries, to something else? I don't think the red is necessary for survival? And ss this something that an undergraduate biology lab can do? Or are these all done by PhD people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.185.178 (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are the first stirrings of a GMO biohacker movement, with people doing it in their garages, ala Steve Jobs/Steve Wozniak. Abductive (reasoning) 03:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So when we add new genes or DNA say to a plant, and I just adding new genes/DNA or am I replacing (like substituting)? Take that blue rose for example. Adding a blue-colored gene/DNA when it already might have that for the red color, I would have to remove it, right? And that would require looking for the particular gene or DNA to replace? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

In the case of the not-remotely-actually-blue rose, as it states in article, they spliced in a gene for the naturally occurring delphinidin into a white rose, then, when the color was not satisfactory, used "RNA interference (RNAi) technology to depress all other color production by endogenous genes by blocking a crucial protein in color production, called dihydroflavonol 4-reductase (DFR)", which could hardly be called successful. This shows to go you that genetic engineering is not remotely simple, that living things are difficult to work with, and that such intricacies are not easily taught on a forum such as this. One would have to take university courses the equivalent of a Master's degree in order to fully understand this material and the limitations of genetic manipulation. Abductive (reasoning) 00:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would any bio major know, what is the easier part, extracting DNA, or insertion? For example, suppose someone gave the "here's the blue DNA you're looking for" then was that the harder part or easier part. And how about the fact that we have so many cells in our body, does adding/replacing DNA in a few cells actually change anything? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Finding genes is not easy, but it preceded our ability to genetically engineer by many years. Back in the day they used to use an air pistol to shoot DNA into plant cells. Also they use viral machinery to deliver the DNA, see CRISPR gene editing. Generally one can tranform only a few cells or low percentage of cells, so one usually thinks along the lines of the offspring being the ones that one is genetically engineering. Gene therapy aims to help individuals now, rather than cure their future offspring, and is fraught with difficulties. Abductive (reasoning) 02:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive, I'm looking at the blue rose article and it took 13 years of collaborative work between an Australian company and Japanese company. So that GMO work-at-home garage lab, I would think would not be able to do as something as sophisticated as a blue rose? Btw, the process for how the 2 companies did it, adding 2 genes and altering a 3rd, that would strike me as proprietary company secret. Was it a secret at the time, and they decided to make it known years later? I note that the article says nothing about the current blue roses they sell, only their 1st 1s, which were not blue, so maybe their current blue roses are proprietary information. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps there is more to the editing than the article states, but there are Plant Patents, and it's likely that they were doing it to advance the field rather than for profit. And those guys didn't have CRISPR. The garage analogy stands: The technology is getting cheaper every day, the machines less finicky, and the methods more widely disseminated due to undergrads and grad students getting trained on how to do it all the time. Abductive (reasoning) 08:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]