Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 214 posts

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#91

Post by awalton »

hatsunearu wrote: post #31
elil17 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it sounds like if you could get your hands on this yeast you could actually make psychedelic beer (or bread).

I think the method uses some special enzymes that can only be really be used with yeast. So yeast is just a supporting role in the operation and the enzyme is the star. They say they tried to get E. Coli to operate the enzyme (E. Coli is used often to make all kinds of drugs, like insulin) but it didn't work and got yeast to work with it.

That's not quite the right read - the previous work (I'm not even sure if it was that lab) was to engineer e. coli to make psilocybin, but e. coli was a bad factory because it still needed a very expensive to make/obtain chemical added as a feedstock.

So instead, they put the same genetic material into yeast which already had the necessary metabolic equipment to make the entire compound "de novo" (i.e. from scratch - just add sugar and yeast nutrients and it pumps out psilocybin). The downside is that the yeast's metabolic pathways chew up about half the product, so there is still work to do on making it more efficiently, but at yields of 600mg/L it's not exactly a bad start. (For reference, depression researchers tested the compound at dose of 30 mg for a 155lb man and it yielded psychoactive effects.)

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#92

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

svara wrote: post #83
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> St. John's Wort, which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases, Oh boy, yet another claim without references.

"Several studies support the therapeutic benefit of St. John's wort in treating mild to moderate depression. In fact, some research has shown the supplement to be as effective as several prescription antidepressants." ( https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-st-johns-wort/a... ) Synthetic antidepressants are by no means completely benign drugs, so having something that can be as effective for mild to moderate d…

You:

> which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases

Then justify this with:

> some research has shown the supplement to be as effective as several prescription antidepressants

(X > Y) != (X = Y) or in plain English, what you cite does not support your claim.

> with a few Google searches

You make the claim, you provide the references.

> taking your comment as further evidence of an irrational bias against phytopharmaceuticals.

I support what works regardless of origin. No person who has experienced severe depression would discard something that worked. I don't have time for idiots who presume 'natural' = 'better' though.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#93

Post by pmoriarty »

plurinshael wrote: post #37
asdff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Growing it in yeast would be great if you are trying to get a consistent quantity of the drug. You could do vats at a time all genetically identical and producing the same yield batch over batch, and can scale up and down your operation for as much as you have vats and yeast food. This is something you want if you are going to press this into pills at a certain dose and give to people for psychiatric disorders, not f…

People with psychiatric disorders need spiritual journeys. Spiritual journeys heal and cleanse the mind, heal and cleanse the soul. Do not try to strip that away. The commodification of medicine troubles me--I prefer the perspective of sacred medicine. It goes roughly definitionally / tautologically: if something heals you, is it not sacred? And likewise, if something is sacred, it heals you. By definition. The idea…

Why can't science be spiritual?

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#94

Post by msla »

rv-de wrote: post #82
colechristensen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin. Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose. Argument fallacies: * your anecdotal positive experiences * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature" * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any * suggesting superiority that "has been (…

> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin. > referring to ["mistakes from the past"] without naming any You just did the same, didn't you? > Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose. Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample. That's equivalent to…

> He transparently identifies his a.p.ex. as such. Then it's not a fallacy ... It's an experience.

It's an experience which we have no reason to think is representative.

> Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample.

How is this highly artificial process any better than making a pill?

I can tell you one way it's worse: What else is in the mushrooms? How do you know what else is in the mushrooms?

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#95

Post by msla »

ianai wrote: post #64
colechristensen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin. Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose. Argument fallacies: * your anecdotal positive experiences * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature" * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any * suggesting superiority that "has been (…

Couldn’t dosage be averaged out by simply drying, “powdering”, and mixing the mushrooms as batches? I think similar is used in winemaking.

How is that highly artificial process any better than making a pill?

Plus, how do you know what other ingredients are in the mushrooms?

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#96

Post by colechristensen »

rv-de wrote: post #82
colechristensen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin. Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose. Argument fallacies: * your anecdotal positive experiences * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature" * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any * suggesting superiority that "has been (…

> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin. > referring to ["mistakes from the past"] without naming any You just did the same, didn't you? > Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose. Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample. That's equivalent to…

>You just did the same, didn't you?

No, the side effects are readily available and specific factual data. If you asked ten people to figure out what they were you'd get ten very similar answers.

"Mistakes from the past" on the other hand was completely without context that would point anyone to do better than guess what was being referenced.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#97

Post by rv-de »

colechristensen wrote: post #96
rv-de wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin. > referring to ["mistakes from the past"] without naming any You just did the same, didn't you? > Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose. Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample. That's equivalent to…

>You just did the same, didn't you? No, the side effects are readily available and specific factual data. If you asked ten people to figure out what they were you'd get ten very similar answers. "Mistakes from the past" on the other hand was completely without context that would point anyone to do better than guess what was being referenced.

> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.

You're still owing at least one example for this statement.

What side effects do you get from shrooms that you don't get from pure psilocin or one of its prodrugs?

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#98

Post by colechristensen »

samanator wrote: post #67
thegabriele wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair you pointed out but with no implied criticism, those are the exact arguments one should expect from a psilocybin user.

Why is that? Do you think they are less sensical than non-users? Or are you implying that the author was under the influence at the time of writing?

There seem to be a specific cluster of personality traits found frequently in hallucinogen users. Whether a selection of who takes the drugs, who talks about it after, or a common effect of the drugs and how they're taken. Someone presently under the influence would probably say something stranger.

What seems likely is that they're very potent tools to change how the mind works, possibly for the better if used in the right way.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#99

Post by rv-de »

msla wrote: post #94
rv-de wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin. > referring to ["mistakes from the past"] without naming any You just did the same, didn't you? > Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose. Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample. That's equivalent to…

> He transparently identifies his a.p.ex. as such. Then it's not a fallacy ... It's an experience. It's an experience which we have no reason to think is representative. > Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample. How is this highly artificial process any better than making a pill? I can tell you one way it's worse: What else is in the mushrooms? How do you know…

> It's an experience which we have no reason to think is representative.

That's the very nature of "experiences" and some might argue precisely the point of describing those.

> How is this highly artificial process any better than making a pill?

Never said that. Do you even know what you mean by "pill" in this context?

> I can tell you one way it's worse: What else is in the mushrooms? How do you know what else is in the mushrooms?

Maybe you should read the article first?

"Psilocybin mushrooms have been found to have minimal harmful effects and could potentially benefit those with depression."

They want to reproduce a mushroom trip - not a trip based on individual psychoactive substances.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#100

Post by svara »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #92
svara wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Several studies support the therapeutic benefit of St. John's wort in treating mild to moderate depression. In fact, some research has shown the supplement to be as effective as several prescription antidepressants." ( https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-st-johns-wort/a... ) Synthetic antidepressants are by no means completely benign drugs, so having something that can be as effective for mild to moderate d…

You: > which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases Then justify this with: > some research has shown the supplement to be as effective as several prescription antidepressants (X > Y) != (X = Y) or in plain English, what you cite does not support your claim. > with a few Google searches You make the claim, you provide the references. > taking your comment as further evidence of an irrational bias agai…

"Effective" in the context of the text I quoted refers to efficacy against depression, but you need to also take the side effects into account when deciding between drugs. Since those vary on a case by case basis and can be significant, there are many cases where St. John's wort is overall the better deal.
Post reply on HN