One Lost Methyl Group = Huge Amounts of Food Production

One Lost Methyl Group = Huge Amounts of Food Production(blogs.sciencemag.org)

46 points by cdwhite 4 years ago | 7 comments

aaron695 4 years ago |

This paper seems a really big deal. I can't think of a peer reviewed post like this before.

Think anything that grows, food, hemp, oils, wood, carbon sequestration, cotton, opium, hedges, grass cattle eat, flowers, erosion control, fish tanks plants, underwater forests that should be able to penetrate current ocean deserts.

This should win Elon Musks $100 million.

The press release mentions growing tree in wind swept areas since the roots are deeper they withstand higher winds.

Just like we jumped on covid, we should jump on this, unless there's a catch, like it's to expensive to implement in large crops? Could they be faking this? Are they generalising past starch plants to much? (Still a noble prize)

SideburnsOfDoom 4 years ago |

previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27925250

RNA demethylation increases rice and potato yields 50% (nature.com) 6 days ago

FooBarBizBazz 4 years ago |

I imagine the nutrient density is now even lower?

sourdoughness 4 years ago | |

Starch, protein, total carbohydrate and vitamin C levels did not seem to be affected in the crops in the study.

xyzzy21 4 years ago |

Nothing is ever "free". We know from GMO foods that making bigger versions comes with a tradeoff of worse nutritional content. This will be similar.

alecst 4 years ago | |

I'd love it if you'd say more. Can I offer a counterpoint? Suppose that farmers breed their crops to be more resilient to bruising in transit or ordinary decay. Perhaps this is what leads to lower nutritional content overall? Or could it be that foods are held in long-term storage, and while they don't spoil, the micronutrients are not as stable as the rest of the produce?

I don't see what relationship GMO-ness ought to have to nutrition, one way or the other. But I have an open mind, feel free to show me the light.

sourdoughness 4 years ago | |

There’s discussion on the link itself that this trade off might not be present here: the reason plants haven’t evolved more efficient enzymes themselves is that they don’t naturally have the selection pressure to produce the heavy crops we want. A plant with a less efficient enzyme could still be optimal for its environment, therefore there are resources available that it has no need to use.

Since we have different priorities than the plant does, we can “optimise” it to take advantage of resources that it never would on its own.