RE: [DIYbio] Re: Bioglowtech news
123 views
Skip to first unread message
Sebastian Cocioba
Jun 2, 2014, 11:08:43 PM6/2/14
to diy...@googlegroups.com
They didn't. They are expressing in the nucleus and shipping to the chloroplasts thus circumventing the main technology which is the plastid transformation. Add a YFP to multiply the high energy photons into more, longer wavelength, photons and that makes it different-ish. Still infringing since the initial patent is broad in scope and still borderline criminal since they intend to ship an agrobacterium line, albeit disarmed, which is considered a plant pathogen without a permit per order which is a FEDERAL crime. I Still have not a single clue how all of this is overlooked or disregarded and how the project is aiming for commercial ventures even though they break bioglow's patent in the first claim. BTW, where is the DIY Bio part of all of this? Wasn't this a non-profit attempt to prove it can be done on a "DIY" level?
Either way I can't wait to see the results. Its a bio-drama and will be awesome if somehow a cool plant comes out of it all. Initial sales from bioglow ranged in the $700+ area per plant. Nice profit but really want to hear from the buyers. Was it worth it all? Nicotiana Alta has a relatively short life span and is a bit tricky to grow happy. If I were them I would have made a plastid vector for something more ornamental like petunia. Simple transformations, easy growth, tons of seeds, and various colors.
The one thing I really wish both companies would stop doing is either adding exogenous luciferin or use a 30+ second camera exposure and claim that's the actual glow. Marketing shmarketing. Dont lie to me. If I were them, I'd keep it quiet until I have the real deal and then infiltrate the market all at once. No frills, no empty promises of lighting up the streets, just a solid product or go home.
Some can say you need to sell it to your investors to stay afloat. To that I say, if you make grand claims and your product doesn't sell itself, you've done something wrong. If its really all you say it is, money should flow in faster than banks can keep up. No need to manipulate the truth. Then again, an attitude like mine will never make it in the business world...pardon the digression.
Good luck to both companies. May the glowiest plant win!
Sebastian S. Cocioba
CEO & Founder
New York Botanics, LLC
Plant Biotech R&D
Either way I can't wait to see the results. Its a bio-drama and will be awesome if somehow a cool plant comes out of it all. Initial sales from bioglow ranged in the $700+ area per plant. Nice profit but really want to hear from the buyers. Was it worth it all? Nicotiana Alta has a relatively short life span and is a bit tricky to grow happy. If I were them I would have made a plastid vector for something more ornamental like petunia. Simple transformations, easy growth, tons of seeds, and various colors.
The one thing I really wish both companies would stop doing is either adding exogenous luciferin or use a 30+ second camera exposure and claim that's the actual glow. Marketing shmarketing. Dont lie to me. If I were them, I'd keep it quiet until I have the real deal and then infiltrate the market all at once. No frills, no empty promises of lighting up the streets, just a solid product or go home.
Some can say you need to sell it to your investors to stay afloat. To that I say, if you make grand claims and your product doesn't sell itself, you've done something wrong. If its really all you say it is, money should flow in faster than banks can keep up. No need to manipulate the truth. Then again, an attitude like mine will never make it in the business world...pardon the digression.
Good luck to both companies. May the glowiest plant win!
Sebastian S. Cocioba
CEO & Founder
New York Botanics, LLC
Plant Biotech R&D
From: Koeng
Sent: 6/2/2014 10:17 PM
To: diy...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [DIYbio] Re: Bioglowtech news
I am curious how the glowing plant project got past their patents. Anyone know?
On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:45:35 PM UTC-7, Mega [Andreas Stuermer] wrote:
-- On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:45:35 PM UTC-7, Mega [Andreas Stuermer] wrote:
Hi!Seems the patent holder of glowing plants succeeded in enhancing the bacterial lux operon. Maybe with directed evolution, fluorescent proteins or some other stuff (duplicating lux genes?) .
The before-after picture looks awesome!!
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/a52470b5-b5de-43d9-8428-8114309a0ffe%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Josiah Zayner
Jun 3, 2014, 12:16:29 AM6/3/14
to diy...@googlegroups.com
So the picture on the glowing plant project website says they took a 30 second exposure(http://media.tumblr.com/3b9305a1e68ce53b1af5d04a4ca89e67/tumblr_inline_n6f1we67L21rxiq56.jpg).
So I really wanted to see what a 30 second exposure was like because
normally on cameras the exposure time is a fraction of a second. So I
grabbed my camera and took a piece of a plant and put it in a really
dark room. I took one exposure at ISO 3600 at 1 second and the picture was totally dark(first picture below)(Glowing plant uses ISO 4000
so I was trying to be close to that) . Then I took one at 30 seconds and you can see stuff, WHOA! 30
seconds is a looooong exposure and basically makes any tiny amount of
light seem huge. I literally could not see the flower with my eyes that
you see in the second image! I can't even imagine that one could see the
plant glow with the naked eye if that is only how bright it is at 30
second exposure. But maybe barely?
Here is a URL with the photos in case they don't load in the email: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k9Zag5uwCZO4k46FLewF0q5XUEWShRJSn8w1O4ZPkLk/edit?usp=sharing
Sebastian Cocioba
Jun 3, 2014, 12:41:21 AM6/3/14
to diy...@googlegroups.com
I got some P. Stipticus fungus from a kit and had it growing on a new roll of toilet paper. It takes a while to get used to the light but once u fully dark adapt you can see it glow blue...barely. Constitutive glow isn't seen brightly in nature and maybe for good reason. If you apply topical luciferin ($200/mg) it will glow like all hell as with any plant transformed with luciferase. Its used as a marker routinely. One day we will crack natures limit on energetically heavy glow via oxygen-dependent lux. Till then its all smoke, mirrors, and literally camera trickery. Damn plants and their lack of copious amounts of ATP!
Ill snap a long picture once I get my hands on a nice camera. Until then I can only describe it as faint but bright enough to see contours and details of the filaments and hyphae on the roll of TP. The vibrio plasmid shocked into e coli is much brighter.
Ill snap a long picture once I get my hands on a nice camera. Until then I can only describe it as faint but bright enough to see contours and details of the filaments and hyphae on the roll of TP. The vibrio plasmid shocked into e coli is much brighter.
Sebastian S. Cocioba
CEO & Founder
New York Botanics, LLC
Plant Biotech R&D
From: Josiah Zayner
Sent: 6/3/2014 12:16 AM
To: diy...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [DIYbio] Re: Bioglowtech news
Cathal Garvey
Jun 3, 2014, 3:41:14 AM6/3/14
to diy...@googlegroups.com
P.stipticus can oxidise firefly luciferin? That's pretty weird, when I
looked it up a few years back the available research suggested a totally
different system!
Also, I would number among the glowing plant sceptics. There's a good
reason that bioluminescence is only observed in higher trophic groups;
the lowest groups (plants) have to actually work for their sugar, and
can't afford to fritter it away on glowing. Perhaps there's a plant out
there in an exotic jungle somewhere that has a gently glowing flower at
night to attract moths, but given how useful that would be and how it
appears totally absent in nature as we know it, the costs must simply be
too high.
Bioluminescence is pretty efficient, but (like warm-bloodedness) it's a
constant expense. For phototrophs, that's a hard sell. I know some algae
do occasionally luminesce, but never (to my knowledge) constitutively,
and algae often have more efficient photosynthesis pathways, or
moonlight as *vores when the opportunity arises. They can afford the
expense if it means they can dissuade algavores from grazing at night.
I expect that both groups will make glowing plants eventually, but that
those plants won't grow, breed or survive well. Perhaps they'd do OK in
a hydroponic setting with added sugar, but to make that convenient (e.g.
not prone to becoming contaminated and smelly) it may have to be an odd
sugar that the plants are engineered to digest, but bacteria cannot.
Lots of work in that direction.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is animals that can be made into
nightlights, instead? Domesticated glowbugs, anyone? Or bioluminescent
cave fish?
On 03/06/14 05:41, Sebastian Cocioba wrote:
> I got some P. Stipticus fungus from a kit and had it growing on a new
> roll of toilet paper. It takes a while to get used to the light but once u
> fully dark adapt you can see it glow blue...barely. Constitutive glow isn't
> seen brightly in nature and maybe for good reason. If you apply topical
> luciferin ($200/mg) it will glow like all hell as with any plant
> transformed with luciferase. Its used as a marker routinely. One day we
> will crack natures limit on energetically heavy glow via oxygen-dependent
> lux. Till then its all smoke, mirrors, and literally camera trickery. Damn
> plants and their lack of copious amounts of ATP!
>
> Ill snap a long picture once I get my hands on a nice camera. Until then I
> can only describe it as faint but bright enough to see contours and details
> of the filaments and hyphae on the roll of TP. The vibrio plasmid shocked
> into e coli is much brighter.
>
> Sebastian S. Cocioba
> CEO & Founder
> New York Botanics, LLC
> Plant Biotech R&D
> ------------------------------
> From: Josiah Zayner <josiah...@gmail.com>
>
>
> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-JU5sD8pkAy8/U41Lk108cKI/AAAAAAAADiI/d3LJ2R8-YbE/s1600/30sec.jpg>
>> ------------------------------
>> From: Koeng <javascript:>
>> send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. For more
>> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
>> .
>> .
> .
T: @onetruecathal, @IndieBBDNA
P: +353876363185
W: http://indiebiotech.com
looked it up a few years back the available research suggested a totally
different system!
Also, I would number among the glowing plant sceptics. There's a good
reason that bioluminescence is only observed in higher trophic groups;
the lowest groups (plants) have to actually work for their sugar, and
can't afford to fritter it away on glowing. Perhaps there's a plant out
there in an exotic jungle somewhere that has a gently glowing flower at
night to attract moths, but given how useful that would be and how it
appears totally absent in nature as we know it, the costs must simply be
too high.
Bioluminescence is pretty efficient, but (like warm-bloodedness) it's a
constant expense. For phototrophs, that's a hard sell. I know some algae
do occasionally luminesce, but never (to my knowledge) constitutively,
and algae often have more efficient photosynthesis pathways, or
moonlight as *vores when the opportunity arises. They can afford the
expense if it means they can dissuade algavores from grazing at night.
I expect that both groups will make glowing plants eventually, but that
those plants won't grow, breed or survive well. Perhaps they'd do OK in
a hydroponic setting with added sugar, but to make that convenient (e.g.
not prone to becoming contaminated and smelly) it may have to be an odd
sugar that the plants are engineered to digest, but bacteria cannot.
Lots of work in that direction.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is animals that can be made into
nightlights, instead? Domesticated glowbugs, anyone? Or bioluminescent
cave fish?
On 03/06/14 05:41, Sebastian Cocioba wrote:
> I got some P. Stipticus fungus from a kit and had it growing on a new
> roll of toilet paper. It takes a while to get used to the light but once u
> fully dark adapt you can see it glow blue...barely. Constitutive glow isn't
> seen brightly in nature and maybe for good reason. If you apply topical
> luciferin ($200/mg) it will glow like all hell as with any plant
> transformed with luciferase. Its used as a marker routinely. One day we
> will crack natures limit on energetically heavy glow via oxygen-dependent
> lux. Till then its all smoke, mirrors, and literally camera trickery. Damn
> plants and their lack of copious amounts of ATP!
>
> Ill snap a long picture once I get my hands on a nice camera. Until then I
> can only describe it as faint but bright enough to see contours and details
> of the filaments and hyphae on the roll of TP. The vibrio plasmid shocked
> into e coli is much brighter.
>
> Sebastian S. Cocioba
> CEO & Founder
> New York Botanics, LLC
> Plant Biotech R&D
> From: Josiah Zayner <josiah...@gmail.com>
> Sent: 6/3/2014 12:16 AM
> To: diy...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DIYbio] Re: Bioglowtech news
>
> So the picture on the glowing plant project website says they took a 30
> second exposure(
> http://media.tumblr.com/3b9305a1e68ce53b1af5d04a4ca89e67/tumblr_inline_n6f1we67L21rxiq56.jpg
> <https://groups.google.com/>). So I really wanted to see what a 30 second
> To: diy...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DIYbio] Re: Bioglowtech news
>
> So the picture on the glowing plant project website says they took a 30
> second exposure(
> http://media.tumblr.com/3b9305a1e68ce53b1af5d04a4ca89e67/tumblr_inline_n6f1we67L21rxiq56.jpg
> exposure was like because normally on cameras the exposure time is a
> fraction of a second. So I grabbed my camera and took a piece of a plant
> and put it in a really dark room. I took one exposure at ISO 3600 at 1
> second and the picture was totally dark(first picture below)(Glowing plant
> uses ISO 4000 so I was trying to be close to that) . Then I took one at 30
> seconds and you can see stuff, WHOA! 30 seconds is a looooong exposure and
> basically makes any tiny amount of light seem huge. I literally could not
> see the flower with my eyes that you see in the second image! I can't even
> imagine that one could see the plant glow with the naked eye if that is
> only how bright it is at 30 second exposure. But maybe barely?
>
>
> Here is a URL with the photos in case they don't load in the email:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k9Zag5uwCZO4k46FLewF0q5XUEWShRJSn8w1O4ZPkLk/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-c5jMqEGszhw/U41LvAvHVMI/AAAAAAAADiU/m2vnccxODqI/s1600/1sec.jpg>
> fraction of a second. So I grabbed my camera and took a piece of a plant
> and put it in a really dark room. I took one exposure at ISO 3600 at 1
> second and the picture was totally dark(first picture below)(Glowing plant
> uses ISO 4000 so I was trying to be close to that) . Then I took one at 30
> seconds and you can see stuff, WHOA! 30 seconds is a looooong exposure and
> basically makes any tiny amount of light seem huge. I literally could not
> see the flower with my eyes that you see in the second image! I can't even
> imagine that one could see the plant glow with the naked eye if that is
> only how bright it is at 30 second exposure. But maybe barely?
>
>
> Here is a URL with the photos in case they don't load in the email:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k9Zag5uwCZO4k46FLewF0q5XUEWShRJSn8w1O4ZPkLk/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
>
> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-JU5sD8pkAy8/U41Lk108cKI/AAAAAAAADiI/d3LJ2R8-YbE/s1600/30sec.jpg>
>> From: Koeng <javascript:>
>> Sent: 6/2/2014 10:17 PM
>> To: diy...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
>> Subject: [DIYbio] Re: Bioglowtech news
>>
>> I am curious how the glowing plant project got past their patents. Anyone
>> know?
>>
>> On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:45:35 PM UTC-7, Mega [Andreas Stuermer] wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Seems the patent holder of glowing plants succeeded in enhancing the
>>> bacterial lux operon. Maybe with directed evolution, fluorescent proteins
>>> or some other stuff (duplicating lux genes?) .
>>>
>>> http://www.bioglowtech.com/news.html
>>>
>>> The before-after picture looks awesome!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to
>> diy...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. To unsubscribe from this group,
>>
>> I am curious how the glowing plant project got past their patents. Anyone
>> know?
>>
>> On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:45:35 PM UTC-7, Mega [Andreas Stuermer] wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Seems the patent holder of glowing plants succeeded in enhancing the
>>> bacterial lux operon. Maybe with directed evolution, fluorescent proteins
>>> or some other stuff (duplicating lux genes?) .
>>>
>>> http://www.bioglowtech.com/news.html
>>>
>>> The before-after picture looks awesome!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to
>> send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. For more
>> options, visit this group at
>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
>> Learn more at www.diybio.org
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "DIYbio" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
>> Learn more at www.diybio.org
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "DIYbio" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/a52470b5-b5de-43d9-8428-8114309a0ffe%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/a52470b5-b5de-43d9-8428-8114309a0ffe%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/a52470b5-b5de-43d9-8428-8114309a0ffe%40googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to
> diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "DIYbio" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/84f10ff5-d5e6-45a5-b969-2313b0376ffa%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/84f10ff5-d5e6-45a5-b969-2313b0376ffa%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>
> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to
> diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "DIYbio" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/84f10ff5-d5e6-45a5-b969-2313b0376ffa%40googlegroups.com
> .
T: @onetruecathal, @IndieBBDNA
P: +353876363185
W: http://indiebiotech.com
Sebastian Cocioba
Jun 3, 2014, 9:18:41 AM6/3/14
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Pardon the confusion about the luciferin. I meant that as two separate
things: P Stipticus glows faintly yet constitutive.
Applying topical luciferin substrate will male the luc (not lux)
transformed plant will make it glow brightly for a moment.
Didn't mean stipticus will naturally oxidize it. Im actually a real fan
of the glowing fungi out there. Only example of a constitutive species
I know of in terms of glow. The mechanism is suspected to be
chemiluminescent only so im toying with the notion of an alternate
bioluminescent pathway. Fishing it out will be a challenge especially
since the genome of any of said fungi are still not sequenced. Curious
if any of them use a non-luciferase system. Would be quite the
discovery.
Sebastian S. Cocioba
CEO & Founder
New York Botanics, LLC
Plant Biotech R&D From: Cathal Garvey
Sent: 6/3/2014 3:41 AM
things: P Stipticus glows faintly yet constitutive.
Applying topical luciferin substrate will male the luc (not lux)
transformed plant will make it glow brightly for a moment.
Didn't mean stipticus will naturally oxidize it. Im actually a real fan
of the glowing fungi out there. Only example of a constitutive species
I know of in terms of glow. The mechanism is suspected to be
chemiluminescent only so im toying with the notion of an alternate
bioluminescent pathway. Fishing it out will be a challenge especially
since the genome of any of said fungi are still not sequenced. Curious
if any of them use a non-luciferase system. Would be quite the
discovery.
Sebastian S. Cocioba
CEO & Founder
New York Botanics, LLC
Sent: 6/3/2014 3:41 AM
![Mega [Andreas Stuermer]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUNVm1hB8tAcAAFPeCKG7sAAOMXtiGvFTd7NEBaHFgxRcdy1Lnb=s40-c)
Mega [Andreas Stuermer]
Jun 3, 2014, 3:25:22 PM6/3/14
to diy...@googlegroups.com
i too have panellus, and as you say it's not that bright. Though fruiting bodies are much brighter.
Mega [Andreas Stuermer]
Jun 3, 2014, 5:23:52 PM6/3/14
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Btw, Krichevsky's paper states that his (first batch of) bioluminescent plants did not grow slower than the control group (perhaps they did, but less than say 5% slower).
Say the new enhanced version takes twice the amount of energy - growing 10% slower. Or even 20% slower. Still, enough energy to grow. If you could make it inducible by darkness, you would cut metabolic energy bill by half.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages