Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Saturday August 15 2015, @02:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the value-added dept.

Back in May, UC Berkeley scientists reported using genetically modified yeast to "brew" morphine. Now Stanford University scientists have created strains of yeast that can make other opiate painkillers:

A strain of yeast engineered in a lab was able to transform sugar into a pain-killing drug — called hydrocodone — for the first time. And a second strain was able to produce thebaine, an opiate precursor that drug companies use to make oxycodone. The findings, published in Science, could completely change the way drug companies make pain-relieving medicine. Unfortunately, it may also open the door to less positive outcomes, like "home-brewed" heroin.

[...] In the short term, yeast-made opiates might lead to cheaper drugs. But the true excitement is farther down the road: scientists may be able to use this technology to make more effective pain-killers. "We're not just limited to what happens in nature or what the poppies make," Smolke says. "We can begin to modify these compounds in ways that will, for example, reduce the negative side effects that are associated with these medicines, but still keep the pain relieving properties." The two yeast strains aren't anywhere near ready for commercial use. Right now, they make such small quantities of drugs that it would take about 4,400 gallons of engineered yeast to make a single dose of standard pain-relieving medicine. So the next step for researchers is boosting the drug yields — which could take years. And for once, that might actually be a good thing; health officials and scientists will need that time to figure out how to keep these strains from being used to fuel the illegal drug market.

[More after the break.]

Creating a plan that encourages this line of research while also preventing the illicit use of these yeast strains "is critical," says John Dueber, a bioengineer at the University of California-Berkeley who didn't work on this study, but who has been working on yeast-made opiates. Thomas Binz, head of Biological Safety and Human Genetics in Switzerland's Federal Office of Public Health, agrees. "All facilities or laboratories that want to produce such strains will have to be known to the government," he says, specifying that these are his personal opinions. Binz also thinks that an oversight system for genetically modified organisms or particular DNA sequences will have to be created "to prevent theft." Finally, scientists will have to come up with ways to make it harder for illegal users to produce the strains sustainably.

[...] The Stanford researchers acknowledge that their strains could be used to make illegal drugs in the paper; they want to work with outside experts to limit the risk. That said, Smolke doesn't think that risk is very big — at least not right now. In a separate study, her team showed that the strains can't make opioid compounds under home-brew conditions. In addition, because the laboratory conditions that are needed to make the technique work are so highly specialized, Smolke thinks that even strains that can make more drugs won't be much use to home-brewers. [...] A meeting of the International Expert Group of Biosafety and Biosecurity Regulations is set to take place later this month in Berlin, Binz says. "Progress on opiate synthesis in yeast, including built-in security features, will be scheduled on the next meeting."

Abstract, Stanford Report, and Smithsonian Magazine.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Bot on Saturday August 15 2015, @03:13PM

    by Bot (3902) on Saturday August 15 2015, @03:13PM (#223282) Journal

    - pharma studies natural ingredients, and try to synthesize its components because they are patentable.
    - genetic engineering alters other plants to produce that synthetic stuff naturally
    - in the meantime the world deposits of natural diversity, where who knows many effective cures exist, are destroyed.

    not to detract from the researchers, who sacrifice most of their time to bring us results such as this.

    --
    Account abandoned.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @04:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @04:13PM (#223294)

    Pharma synthesizes natural products because of yield, transport, time, and stability. Patents are important in pharma becuase development is much more expensive than production. A company will not spend a billion dollars on clinical trials if they can't make the money back with profit on top. Remember, pharmaceutical companies are not charities.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @09:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @09:50PM (#223365)

      Patents are not the only way. Research can be payed for by the tax payer. People don't like paying up front for things, even if it saves them money in the long run. So patents are the preferred method for paying for pharmaceutical research but don't pretend it is the only way.

      Instead we have a system where the tax payer pays to subsidize the research and then also pays the premium prices for the drugs, either directly or through higher health care costs. It is especially amusing when companies create slight variations just so the can get another patent on a very similar product, but that's more a case of marketing convincing people that the generics aren't good enough.

      We always pay.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @10:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @10:46PM (#223378)

        Read what I wrote again. There is no mention of patents being the only solution.

        As you mention, taxpayers are unwilling to pay for anything besides basic research so the vast majority of drug development costs are covered by the private sector. This is the system the US wants and this is what they get. It is amusing when people expect companies to prioritize the health of the public over their own profit.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @10:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2015, @10:32PM (#223372)

      Except that ithe topic is about cultivating drugs, instead of synthesizing them. If synthesis were so superior we wouldn't be doing this.
      You have a point about less variation, but what happens IRL? people have variations, illnesses have variations, conditions under which illnesses develop and medicines are stored have variations, the interactions with other substances are not even measurable. So, even with all the correctly applied statistics, the doctor has to say "let's hope it works".

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 16 2015, @01:21AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 16 2015, @01:21AM (#223418) Journal

      UC Berkeley - publicly funded institute of learning. That is, not profit driven, exactly. We've gone terribly wrong somewhere.