CSI humboldt thread
- Thread starter THCbreeder
- Start date
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
I think Phylos visualizations are deliberately limited so people won't try to read more into them than they should. Phylos can tell you if two cuts are the same or likely siblings (the lines in the galaxy visualization) but beyond that it is vague. That doesn't mean their data is bad or wrong.
I think a lot of the Phylos hate comes from not understanding what they are showing. They could do a better job of explaining it.
I'm pretty sure the identifiers "Hemp, Skunk, Landrace, OG Kush, Berry, and CBD" are clusters of alleles created automatically by a clustering algorithm and are named on the general theme of what strains are found in them. If the genotype report says it's half skunk that doesn't mean it's necessarily a close relative of the good old Skunk strains or any specific strain or line of strains. Rather, it means that genotype contains a lot of alleles found in the big cluster called "skunk." The massive amount of inbreeding to produce CBD rich strains has resulted in Phylos detecting it as a distinct cluster of alleles. Likewise with the OG Kush cluster.
I think a lot of the Phylos hate comes from not understanding what they are showing. They could do a better job of explaining it.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
If you clicked the information links you'd see this.
If you only knew how ridiculous you look by accusing Phylos of not having the analytical skills to do this.
Bakersfield
Well-Known Member
What is Spice Rack?
Doesn't really look like a cookie cross, seems to lean more towards the kush side of the spectrum.
If I were to guess, I'd say Urkle x Bubba Kush.
Last edited:
quiescent
Well-Known Member
If you only knew how ridiculous you look by blindly defending a group using decade old technology in a rapidly evolving field. Phylos is straight garbage and no one in the industry or in the field of genetics would disagree. Cool concept, poorly executed.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
Can you be more specific about how their their technology is inadequate for determining if CSI:H's Triangle Kush is the same as the 72 other cuts of OG Kush submitted to them? Apparently, they are using well cited, standard methods and software. You didn't even know what they were doing until I posted links yet that didn't stop you form concluding that they were garbage so forgive me if I am skeptical of the quality of your completely unsubstantiated analysis.
Despite your claims to my blindly supporting Phylos, this is what I see: a company founded by a guy with literally a PhD in Cannabis who has written a couple of technical books and headed up by an evolutionary and molecular biologist with a PhD. Their chief data scientist has a PhD in molecular evulotion and was an assistant professor at UCSF School of Medicine, and was the founding director of the Gladstone Institutes Bioinformatics Core Facility. Their advisory board contains more professors from schools like Stanford and UC. I have no reason to think they don't know what they are doing, especially when it comes to the results in question: is CSI:H Triangle Kush the same genotype as 72 other OG Kush cuts submitted to Phylos?
Compare that to a couple of dudes on RIU saying it is "garbage" from a position of ignorance. That's a pretty high hurdle to cross for you now. Since you're also not an expert, unlike some of the people at Phylos, you're going to need more substantive than speculation that "they are incompetent!" or "NUH UH!"
jayblaze710
Well-Known Member
This is like sending your dna off to 23&me and everyone getting results back saying you have genotypes shared with people from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. It’s fucking meaningless. We already know that humans share genotypes with every other human on earth. What is interesting are genotypes that are distinct to particular populations. Phylos releases their results with the implication that they’ve found genotypes unique to blueberry, skunk, etc, when in actuality they haven’t. They just found genotypes common across ALL of cannabis and for some reason are categorizing the data as belonging to a certain population. It’s completely worthless. It’s data that means nothing at all.
You keep coming back to the OG complex shit, but how do you explain WIFI coming back as more related to Chem 91 than Chem D, Chem 4 or Stardawg? The fact is that all of Phylos results are just not very accurate. So take the results with a butt plug of salt. You can choose to believe it if you want, but I think you’re being horribly naive.
Why do they say all OGs are the same but can’t place all the Chems into a single related complex? I have no idea. Results can be skewed significantly based on a bunch of shit, and without them publishing their methods it’s impossible to say. But all it takes is a modicum of knowledge of cannabis strains and their history to know their results aren’t all that accurate.
Also, I’m not just some random dude. I have a PhD in this shit. It’s population genomics/evolutionary genomics. Molecular biologists have no expertise in this stuff.
quiescent
Well-Known Member
I thought phylos was trash before our interaction. I understand how to use phylos just fine. The results aren't anything I'd use as evidence for jack shit.
I don't feel a need to prove anything to some random guy on the internet. That seems to be your gig.
You don't need to be a chef to tell me something is oversalted for me to listen to you. You don't need to be a rocket genius to see that Challenger didn't go as planned. I don't need to be a genetic rocket genius to know phylos is not completely functioning to a point where you can actually glean anything from it.
If I say something isn't reliable, it's soley my opinion that it isn't. I have no interest in wasting time trying to convince you that a genetic database that is far from complete, using 10 year old technology in a rapidly developing area of study, is not reliable.
I'm not saying they're wasting their time or that they might not be able to become a truly great asset to the community. I want them to do this right and become a semi-accessible resource for private genetic mapping. They're not there yet, I'm sorry to point that out.
I don't feel a need to prove anything to some random guy on the internet. That seems to be your gig.
You don't need to be a chef to tell me something is oversalted for me to listen to you. You don't need to be a rocket genius to see that Challenger didn't go as planned. I don't need to be a genetic rocket genius to know phylos is not completely functioning to a point where you can actually glean anything from it.
If I say something isn't reliable, it's soley my opinion that it isn't. I have no interest in wasting time trying to convince you that a genetic database that is far from complete, using 10 year old technology in a rapidly developing area of study, is not reliable.
I'm not saying they're wasting their time or that they might not be able to become a truly great asset to the community. I want them to do this right and become a semi-accessible resource for private genetic mapping. They're not there yet, I'm sorry to point that out.
Last edited:
40AmpstoFreedom
Well-Known Member
Phylos says I am part OG and Himalayan.
Observe & Report
Well-Known Member
Though you might not understand or appreciate the "population profile" that doesn't mean that it is worthless, or meaningless, or wrong or that Phylos is incompetent or shit or whatever. The clusters are found using software with an algorithm described in a paper cited over 24,000 times! Clearly, a lot of researchers and industry professionals find this sort of analysis valid and useful, to say nothing of Phylos customers.
I'm stunned, do you really have such a superficial understanding of Phylos that this is a mystery to you? Is this really your best shot at Phylos, your evidence that they are inaccurate and incompetent? For all you know, those results are 100% accurate. You haven't the foggiest idea what the the "White Fire A" genotype on that inner ring is. Not a clue, but you feel like you can say the results are not very accurate? How would you even know?? Why do you keep doing this? Am I being trolled??
At this time "White Fire A" in Phylos constitutes just one sample sent in by "UL Labs" in Portland. Who are they? Fuck if I know. What is that "White Fire A?" I don't know and you don't know either. However, Phylos had it in their possession and sequenced it and using the techniques described on their website determined that it is pretty closely related to Chem91.
Likewise, at this time the "Chem D" on that outer ring is also a single sample sent in by Norstar. Nobody else has sent in a cutting labeled "Chem D." You don't know what this genotype is either, and apparently neither does Norstar, but Phylos sequenced it so you would have to agree they know better than you do what it is.
Whatever the case, it is best if you stop pretending that Phylos has the definitive cut of everything and any perceived discrepancy with your understanding of Cannabis folklore means they are just wrong. It's not a valid criticism of Phylos. It doesn't say anything about their accuracy or their competence or anything. You have not said a single thing that gets to Phylos ostensible incompetence or inaccuracy. Not one thing. You have, however, said a lot that reveals how little you seem to understand about Phylos.
Phylos does not say all OGs are the same, the chems are indeed clustered on one side of the galaxy, not far from the OGs. Have you even looked at it???
Your dissatisfaction with Phylos visualizations or the comprehensiveness of their database does not reflect at all on Phylos accuracy either when it comes to separating S1's from their Parents, which is what sparked this whole stupid argument. I noticed that CSI:H cut of Triangle Kush is the same as an OG Kush cut that has been submitted to Phylos 72 other times under dozens of different OG Kush names but not as "Triangle Kush." You assert that it probably isn't true because Phylos is incompetent and not very accurate that they must not be able to sort out S1s from their parents despite admitting that you don't know what they are doing to determine this. Identifying clones and S1s is not difficult for Phylos.
Not only is there no reason to think they can't distinguish S1s from Parents because it's not a remarkable feat, but we have evidence they can from NSpecta sending in some S1's of Chemdog. Your suggestion that Chemdog is dissimilar enough from OG Kush that the same alleles wouldn't be useful for distinguishing between clones or S1s is laughable. Your complaint about Phylos selection of alleles is without merit. There is no reason to think they don't know what they are doing and there is no evidence their results aren't accurate. All of your complaints have been born out of your apparent ignorance of Phylos. It's just ridiculous.
Again, Phylos is a professional outfit led by people with better credentials than you who know what they are doing. You keep saying that they don't describe their methods but they do. You have presented no evidence that suggests their results are inaccurate, even if they are not precise enough to your liking. Your accusations are totally baseless and reveal your ignorance about Phylos. You have rejected it for no better reason than you perceive it to contradict your preconceived notions.
Phylos is trying to clear the air of all the myths but it seems the battle is quite uphill indeed.
Bodyne
Well-Known Member
@jayblaze710 what you think of this article.? Sorry a lil off topic.
We as a species would be miserable without yeast. Baker's yeast has given us leavened bread for thousands of years. And I don’t even want to begin to imagine a world without beer and wine, which rely on yeast to convert sugar into alcohol.
Now researchers have turned to yeast to do something more improbable: manufacturing the cannabis compounds CBD and THC. By loading brewer’s yeast with genes from the cannabis plant, they’ve turned the miracle microbes into cannabinoid factories. It’s a clever scheme in a larger movement to methodically pick apart and recreate marijuana’s many compounds, to better understand the plant’s true potential.
The process goes like this. Two different yeasts produce either THC or CBD, depending on what kind of enzyme they carry. Importantly, both carry the cannabis genes that produce CBGA. “CBGA is this kind of central cannabinoid that's the mother of all the other cannabinoids,” says UC Berkeley chemical engineer Jay Keasling, coauthor on a new paper in Nature detailing the technique.
To make THC, that yeast produces CBGA, which then turns into THCA thanks to the yeast's particular enzyme. For the CBD yeast, its own particular enzyme turns the CBGA mother cannabinoid into CBDA. (Alphabet soup, I know, but stick with me.) Now you've got THCA and CBDA, which turn into THC and CBD with the application of heat.
The end bit is not dissimilar from what's going on with the cannabis plant itself. If you were to eat raw cannabis, it’s unlikely you’d get high, because it's mostly THCA. It's only after you apply heat that THCA transforms into THC. (Though small amounts of THCA convert to THC over time as cannabis flower cures.) Edibles work because manufacturers first transform THCA into THC with a process called decarboxylation.
The reason researchers and cannabis companies are interested in alternative ways of producing cannabinoids is that working with the original plant is messy and complicated. First of all, growing the stuff takes a lot of time, water, and energy (if you’re cultivating indoors). Extracting certain cannabinoids from flower is also a hassle. If you’re only after CBD, for example, there’s a chance your extract could be contaminated with THC. This is of particular concern if you want to isolate CBD for use as a medicine—it’s been shown, for instance, to be remarkably effective in treating epilepsy.
Having a vat of yeast churning out pure, non-psychoactive CBD promises to massively simplify production. “Being able to produce that in a way that's uncontaminated with THC is a pretty valuable thing,” says Keasling. Especially since the FDA might want to have a word with you if you accidentally dose patients with a psychoactive substance.
Cannabinoid-producing yeast may also make it easier to study cannabis in the first place. We’re talking about a wildly complicated plant here, with more than 100 different known cannabinoids so far. Some of these compounds are more prevalent than others—modern cannabis strains are packed with THC, because cultivators have bred strains to be ever more intoxicating over the years. But a cannabinoid like tetrahydrocannabivarin, or THCV, shows up in much lower amounts. “Now we're going to have a handle on being able to produce these things in a pure way, and in a relatively simple way, that maybe we can start to test what their functions are,” says Keasling.
Engineered yeast have been used to tackle the scarcity problem in other ways before. In the 1960s, researchers discovered that the taxanes from Pacific yew tree bark can fight cancer. All well and good, except for the Pacific yew, which conservationists feared would go extinct in the hands of an eager medical establishment. But as with this cannabinoid-producing yeast, researchers engineered microbes to help make the drug—deforestation-free.
For cannabinoids, the key benefit is scale. The idea is that you could crank out vast amounts of CBD in vats far more easily than by planting greenhouse after greenhouse of cannabis plants. (Which is not to say some folks won't still appreciate their cannabis grown the old fashioned way.) But to make it as efficient as possible, you’d need to work with the highest possible concentrations of cannabinoids. That is, you’d want optimize your yeast to churn out a whole lot of product.
“Can you keep making it highly concentrated, or does it become toxic to the organisms that you're actually using to produce it, and therefore you have a limit?” asks Jeff Raber, CEO of the Werc Shop, a lab that’s picking apart the components of cannabis.
Regardless of production hurdles, the beauty of this kind of bioengineering is that it gives researchers a powerful platform to dig into not just what each cannabinoid might be useful for—whether treating anxiety or inflammation or epilepsy—but how the many cannabinoids in the plant might interact with one another. This is known as the entourage effect: CBD, for instance, seems to attenuate the psychoactive effects of THC.
By selectively churning out these cannabinoids in the lab, it’ll be easier for researchers to play with them in isolation and with each other, without having to wade through hundreds of other compounds you’d find in pure flower. “Ultimately, a molecule is a molecule,” says Raber. Indeed, cannabinoids made from yeast are the same cannabinoids the plant makes. “It gives flexibility in formulation, it gives broader utility perhaps, and it may eventually scale faster than plants. Regulators might feel a lot better about these types of approaches than those that are fields and fields and fields of plant material.”
And this doesn’t stop at cannabinoids. What Raber and other researchers are pursuing is essentially a reconstruction of cannabis’ chemical profile. Terpenes, for example, are what give weed its characteristic smell, yet you’ll find these across the plant kingdom: Limonene isn’t super abundant in cannabis, but it is an abundant product of the citrus industry. The idea is that instead of going through the grief of extracting small amounts of limonene from a cannabis plant, you can get it from lemons instead.
The eventual goal is to be able to tailor cannabis products, such as tinctures, to a consumer’s preferences. This would allow for a customized ratio of CBD to THC, and eventually other cannabinoids and terpenes, which themselves may play a role in the entourage effect. The terpene linalool, for example, may have anti-anxiety effects.
In the nearer term, let us celebrate yeast, that miracle microbe and creator of all things good: bread, booze, and bioengineered cannabinoids.
We as a species would be miserable without yeast. Baker's yeast has given us leavened bread for thousands of years. And I don’t even want to begin to imagine a world without beer and wine, which rely on yeast to convert sugar into alcohol.
Now researchers have turned to yeast to do something more improbable: manufacturing the cannabis compounds CBD and THC. By loading brewer’s yeast with genes from the cannabis plant, they’ve turned the miracle microbes into cannabinoid factories. It’s a clever scheme in a larger movement to methodically pick apart and recreate marijuana’s many compounds, to better understand the plant’s true potential.
The process goes like this. Two different yeasts produce either THC or CBD, depending on what kind of enzyme they carry. Importantly, both carry the cannabis genes that produce CBGA. “CBGA is this kind of central cannabinoid that's the mother of all the other cannabinoids,” says UC Berkeley chemical engineer Jay Keasling, coauthor on a new paper in Nature detailing the technique.
To make THC, that yeast produces CBGA, which then turns into THCA thanks to the yeast's particular enzyme. For the CBD yeast, its own particular enzyme turns the CBGA mother cannabinoid into CBDA. (Alphabet soup, I know, but stick with me.) Now you've got THCA and CBDA, which turn into THC and CBD with the application of heat.
The end bit is not dissimilar from what's going on with the cannabis plant itself. If you were to eat raw cannabis, it’s unlikely you’d get high, because it's mostly THCA. It's only after you apply heat that THCA transforms into THC. (Though small amounts of THCA convert to THC over time as cannabis flower cures.) Edibles work because manufacturers first transform THCA into THC with a process called decarboxylation.
The reason researchers and cannabis companies are interested in alternative ways of producing cannabinoids is that working with the original plant is messy and complicated. First of all, growing the stuff takes a lot of time, water, and energy (if you’re cultivating indoors). Extracting certain cannabinoids from flower is also a hassle. If you’re only after CBD, for example, there’s a chance your extract could be contaminated with THC. This is of particular concern if you want to isolate CBD for use as a medicine—it’s been shown, for instance, to be remarkably effective in treating epilepsy.
Having a vat of yeast churning out pure, non-psychoactive CBD promises to massively simplify production. “Being able to produce that in a way that's uncontaminated with THC is a pretty valuable thing,” says Keasling. Especially since the FDA might want to have a word with you if you accidentally dose patients with a psychoactive substance.
Cannabinoid-producing yeast may also make it easier to study cannabis in the first place. We’re talking about a wildly complicated plant here, with more than 100 different known cannabinoids so far. Some of these compounds are more prevalent than others—modern cannabis strains are packed with THC, because cultivators have bred strains to be ever more intoxicating over the years. But a cannabinoid like tetrahydrocannabivarin, or THCV, shows up in much lower amounts. “Now we're going to have a handle on being able to produce these things in a pure way, and in a relatively simple way, that maybe we can start to test what their functions are,” says Keasling.
Engineered yeast have been used to tackle the scarcity problem in other ways before. In the 1960s, researchers discovered that the taxanes from Pacific yew tree bark can fight cancer. All well and good, except for the Pacific yew, which conservationists feared would go extinct in the hands of an eager medical establishment. But as with this cannabinoid-producing yeast, researchers engineered microbes to help make the drug—deforestation-free.
For cannabinoids, the key benefit is scale. The idea is that you could crank out vast amounts of CBD in vats far more easily than by planting greenhouse after greenhouse of cannabis plants. (Which is not to say some folks won't still appreciate their cannabis grown the old fashioned way.) But to make it as efficient as possible, you’d need to work with the highest possible concentrations of cannabinoids. That is, you’d want optimize your yeast to churn out a whole lot of product.
“Can you keep making it highly concentrated, or does it become toxic to the organisms that you're actually using to produce it, and therefore you have a limit?” asks Jeff Raber, CEO of the Werc Shop, a lab that’s picking apart the components of cannabis.
Regardless of production hurdles, the beauty of this kind of bioengineering is that it gives researchers a powerful platform to dig into not just what each cannabinoid might be useful for—whether treating anxiety or inflammation or epilepsy—but how the many cannabinoids in the plant might interact with one another. This is known as the entourage effect: CBD, for instance, seems to attenuate the psychoactive effects of THC.
By selectively churning out these cannabinoids in the lab, it’ll be easier for researchers to play with them in isolation and with each other, without having to wade through hundreds of other compounds you’d find in pure flower. “Ultimately, a molecule is a molecule,” says Raber. Indeed, cannabinoids made from yeast are the same cannabinoids the plant makes. “It gives flexibility in formulation, it gives broader utility perhaps, and it may eventually scale faster than plants. Regulators might feel a lot better about these types of approaches than those that are fields and fields and fields of plant material.”
And this doesn’t stop at cannabinoids. What Raber and other researchers are pursuing is essentially a reconstruction of cannabis’ chemical profile. Terpenes, for example, are what give weed its characteristic smell, yet you’ll find these across the plant kingdom: Limonene isn’t super abundant in cannabis, but it is an abundant product of the citrus industry. The idea is that instead of going through the grief of extracting small amounts of limonene from a cannabis plant, you can get it from lemons instead.
The eventual goal is to be able to tailor cannabis products, such as tinctures, to a consumer’s preferences. This would allow for a customized ratio of CBD to THC, and eventually other cannabinoids and terpenes, which themselves may play a role in the entourage effect. The terpene linalool, for example, may have anti-anxiety effects.
In the nearer term, let us celebrate yeast, that miracle microbe and creator of all things good: bread, booze, and bioengineered cannabinoids.
Bakersfield
Well-Known Member
Crazy. But it makes sense.
They've been making different vitamins for years, with certain bacteria and yeast.
maple sloth
Well-Known Member
I cracked a pack of Virgin Kush among a bunch of other packs from other breeders and the VK were all so lame and runty that I culled them all. Sucks because I never heard a bad thing about Nspecta so I was pretty excited but I can't say I'm itching to spend money on his gear again.
I do have a pack of Pirates TK x Uzbekistani though, hope I have better luck with that. Will report back when I get to those.
I do have a pack of Pirates TK x Uzbekistani though, hope I have better luck with that. Will report back when I get to those.
jayblaze710
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I saw the headlines for that recently. Yeast and other microorganisms have been used to create organic compounds for a long time now. It’s applicability for cannabinoids? I think some will be useful, like producing CBD in large amounts. CBD is expensive right now, and a lot of people could use it. So anything dropping the price would be good.
But mixing together THC/CBD/terpenes to create pseudo-cannabis products I think is bullshit. I think there’s so much going on in the plant that no lab created product is ever going to compare. I personally don’t like how further and further from the plant we’re getting. I prefer using flower and always will.
Bodyne
Well-Known Member
Tissue cultures seem to be catching on. Im like you though, other than maybe bubble hash, I prefer just flowers. I was in Oregon when they were really making loads of rso and sellin it in cali for 500 a syringe. I think they quit that. I also was around when fuckers were using any and every solvent BEFORE the lab grade equipment and proper purging started coming out and that shit was awful. Why Im not a big fan of dabbin, etc. I didn't make it, so I don't really know whats in it and given what they are finding in these cartridges you see everywhere these days, I just don't trust other dudes like that. I trust my own flowers or flowers of people I really know.
blowincherrypie
Well-Known Member
TrailBlazer12747
Well-Known Member
Chem 91 s1 ×2 Day 39
Nothing exceptional about it imo. Average yield, below average resin production so far. We'll see what the smoke is like.
Nothing exceptional about it imo. Average yield, below average resin production so far. We'll see what the smoke is like.
thenotsoesoteric
Well-Known Member
Damn, @whytewidow had a chem 91 s1 that didn't really do much in the frost production. It did get a little better but still it didn't look like much. Not sure how the smoke on it was, I'm sure he could fill in more there.Chem 91 s1 ×2 Day 39
Nothing exceptional about it imo. Average yield, below average resin production so far. We'll see what the smoke is like.
View attachment 4292775
View attachment 4292773
whytewidow
Well-Known Member
That looks identical to the pheno I found. Smoke was pretty good. But not sticky at all. More greasy. But the second pheno the Dill Pickle pheno is a frost monster.
TrailBlazer12747
Well-Known Member
I saw whytes pics when he ran it. That was partly why i decided to give them a shot. Dont think i found the dill pickle pheno unfortunately. Im a lurker but i won't run anything unless its got good reviews from ppl i trust on here. For what its worth, you are the reason i bought HSO black dog and will be popping a couple next month.
Still holding out hope for these 91s. Will update.