Genetic testing for Cannabis

[TrinZilla]

With the advent of genotyping and DNA fingerprinting of Cannabis, we have been thinking about some of the pros and cons that could potentially arise from the widespread use of this sort of testing... For instance, how is the progenitor of a certain strain (e.g., OG Kush) identified and certified to be legitimate?

Would this mean that the parents of OG Kush (unless it was selfed) would also be identifiable and thus perhaps the cross could be recreated by locating the parents?

Could this mean that famous strains that have never had their parents publicly identified (e.g, Sensi Star) could be mapped and put many speculations and rumors to rest for good?

Would this sort of testing result in breeders being able to register/patent/trademark their work?

Could this sort of testing prove a strains' heritage all the way back to its' region of origin?

These are just some of the question we are asking ourselves when considering genetic mapping of Cannabis, we would love to hear what other people think about this topic!

 

[mack 10]

The problem with that is there is no standard. you are going to have to take someone's word for it, what if they had the wrong thing to begin with.
I agree though plant DNA tests would be able to show who has what and i'd bet many are the same stuff under many diff names.

 

[Bulldog420]

The government has been profiling herb since the 80's. Can't remember exactly, but DNA has nothing to do with it. They record thc profiles and terps which is like a fingerprint. Supposedly where OG kush came from was a huge underground facility bust back in the 80's or 90's. They were amazed at the high thc levels and started to record every sample they could get.

 

[TrinZilla]

Yes terpene profiling is one thing, genotyping/DNA fingerprinting is quite something else... check these links for more info on genetic profiling of cannabis:

http://www.acgtinc.com/marijuana_genotyping.htm
http://www.cwanalytical.com/cannabis-dna-initiative
etc., etc... there are others.

There will be more and more of these type of services popping up very shortly, we have a strong feeling... In our area, there are already places where you can submit samples for the database... a database such as that would eventually remove the whole "who to believe about this strains' lineage" problem, as the origins could theoretically be mapped and genetically verified.

 

[Jhhnn]

I read a piece in the Cannabist (I think) about genetic profiling. IIRC, only ~25% of what they sampled in WA as Charlotte's Web really was Charlotte's Web.

Not surprising. When you get something that doesn't sell well, change the label to something that does.

Plant patents? Perhaps, but you'd have to create something uniquely identifiable that comes from nobody but you. These are patented, for example, as are many other hybrid plants-

http://www.logees.com/angel-s-trumpet-inca-sun-brugmansia-hybrid.html

 

[siftedunity]

you cant patent genetics. wont ever happen.

 

[PWF]

plants like certain roses and herbs have already been patented and trademarked.
one is a lemon basil named after one of the first ladies and i think it is grown in the whitehouse garden to this day.
there are alot.
it has already happened with cannabis via the feds.

 

[PWF]

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/ga...en-nursery-plants-are-patented-or-trademarked
this discusses patents in a strange way, trying to say the patent stimulate innovation lol. what bullshit.

 

[Ru5tyNaiL]

Doesnt Monsanto have patents on soy beans?

 

[TrinZilla]

We'll just leave this link here, for those interested...

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/plant_patents.jsp

Thanks for the input everybody!

 

[Ru5tyNaiL]

That clears it up.

 

[Only Ornamental]

That goes into the direction of the Phylos project (Sam posted several threads about this recently) trying to create a genetic map .

With the advent of genotyping and DNA fingerprinting of Cannabis (Fingerprinting only considers certain markers and is quite easy to do and standard procedure in smart breeding), we have been thinking about some of the pros and cons that could potentially arise from the widespread use of this sort of testing... For instance, how is the progenitor of a certain strain (e.g., OG Kush) identified (Depends, sometimes a few markers suffice given that you have the parent lines as reference) and certified to be legitimate (good question)?

Would this mean that the parents of OG Kush (unless it was selfed) would also be identifiable (Theoretically yes, it's called IBD and gives you the probability of a certain plant to be an ancestor) and thus perhaps the cross could be recreated by locating the parents (Unless it's an F1, this is unlikely because of chromosomal crossover putting the chances against you.)?

Could this mean that famous strains that have never had their parents publicly identified (e.g, Sensi Star) could be mapped and put many speculations and rumors to rest for good? Correct. But it depends a bit on chances (and only gives you a probability, not absolute certainty) and the amount of reference material.

Would this sort of testing result in breeders being able to register/patent/trademark their work? Genetic data is not needed for this but might help defending a claim (or make you lose it).

Could this sort of testing prove a strains' heritage all the way back to its' region of origin? That would be the ideal case people are looking at right now. How it goes, we'll see in a few month...

These are just some of the question we are asking ourselves (who is 'ourselves'?) when considering genetic mapping of Cannabis, we would love to hear what other people think about this topic!

 

[Only Ornamental]

We'll just leave this link here, for those interested...

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/plant_patents.jsp

Thanks for the input everybody!

Thank you for the link!! Very helpful indeed!!

 

[Skinny Leaf]

Doesnt Monsanto have patents on soy beans?

Yes by adding a gene to soy beans that would not normally be in soy. Hence, genetic modification.


Here is a story of Monsanto and wheat. The company has no scruples.


The company is paying $250,000 to wheat growers’ associations as part of the settlement.

(REUTERS) – Monsanto Co said on Wednesday it reached a settlement with U.S. wheat farmers who sued the seed company over market disruption after unapproved genetically engineered wheat was discovered growing without oversight in Oregon.

Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” wheat, which was never approved by U.S. regulators and which the company said it stopped testing a decade ago, was found growing in an Oregon farmer’s field in 2013. The company had said all the experimental grain was destroyed or stored away.

South Korea and Japan temporarily halted purchases of U.S. wheat after the announcement on fears the unapproved wheat, engineered to withstand Roundup herbicide, might have contaminated U.S. wheat supplies.

Monsanto did not admit liability, but agreed to pay $250,000 to wheat growers’ associations, including $100,000 to the National Wheat Foundation, and $50,000 each to the Washington Association of Wheat Growers, the Oregon Wheat Growers’ League and the Idaho Grain Producers’ Association.

It will also pay $2.125 million into a settlement fund for farmers in Washington, Oregon and Idaho who sold soft white wheat between May 30, 2013, and Nov. 30, 2013.

Monsanto will reimburse plaintiffs’ counsel for a portion of their out-of-pocket costs and fees associated with the litigation.

At least three class action lawsuits will be dismissed as part of the settlement, but the company said it does not resolve pending claims by growers of wheat other than the soft white variety.

Monsanto still faces scrutiny over its biotech wheat after the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service said in September there had been a second discovery of unapproved Monsanto wheat. That wheat was found growing at a Montana State University research facility in Huntley, Montana, where field trials were conducted between 2000 and 2003.

There is no commercially approved genetically modified wheat, although Monsanto and several other companies are trying to develop biotech varieties of the grain.

 

[Morcheeba*]

We'll just leave this link here, for those interested...

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/plant_patents.jsp

Thanks for the input everybody!

you may also want to look at the info from the Plant Variety Protection Office.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/PVPO

"§ 97.6 Application for certificate.
(d) The applicant shall submit with the application:
(1) A declaration that at least 3,000 seeds of the
viable basic seed required to reproduce the variety
will be deposited in a public depository approved by the Commissioner and will be maintained
for the duration of the certificate; or "


while Cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance i dont see this part of an application getting completed but i may be overlooking something.

peace

 

[fishinnutt]

you cant patent genetics. wont ever happen.

Not to be disagreeable but when the law changed here in the US, Monsanto patented over 11,000 seed varieties. So apparently, yes, you can now patent life and genetics. I don't agree with these practices but they are here and Monsanto is moving legally against people who have had Monsanto strains blow in to a corner of an otherwise non-Monsanto variety field.

 

[Morcheeba*]

Not to be disagreeable but when the law changed here in the US, Monsanto patented over 11,000 seed varieties. So apparently, yes, you can now patent life and genetics. I don't agree with these practices but they are here and Monsanto is moving legally against people who have had Monsanto strains blow in to a corner of an otherwise non-Monsanto variety field.

regarding gmo pollen contaminating a non gmo field when the affected farmer is not licensed to cultivate the gmo crop and they get sued them for damages confuses me.

why hasnt the affected farmer filed suit for contamination of their crop by getting pollinated by unwanted gmo pollen rendering their harvest useless and unable to be sold due to infringement?

couldnt any licensed gmo farmer near the contaminated farm be a co-defendant as the source of unwanted gmo pollen and liable for any/all financial loss of the crop?

i doubt crop failure insurance will cover a loss due to infringement on a gmo crop in the case of an un wanted pollination by a protected plant variety but maybe they should take on the fight.


peace

 

[Only Ornamental]

I don't recall why exactly it went down the way it did and the obviously bad guy not only walked free but got rich along the way too... might have had something to do with their layers and budget against the one of the poor farmer? It's too often like that...

 

[Ru5tyNaiL]

The documentary I saw shed some light on that. The farmers who's field was contaminated was being sued and he tried to file against Monsanto but they tied the courts up with there billions of dollars and obvious political connections and in order to go forward the farmer would need upwards of at least 1million$ ,. It also pointed out a lot of the fat cats with top hats at Monsanto were all previously or currently employed by highly influential government associations. so I'm sure strings were pulled, hands were greased, and so on.

 

[Ru5tyNaiL]

And with most of those farmers already owing upwards of 1/4million in debt anyway, unfortunately when Monsanto targets you , you lose EVERYTHING. They specifically have a hotline for people to tell if other farmers save seed from their crop. And have teams roaming the country investigating. Because if you use their patented gmo soy beans and keep the seeds for next years harvest they sue you for patent infringement or whatever because you just made what they make and charge people for. Imagine not being able to clone your plant because it would be a "free copy" or make f2's because it's "patent infringement ". Ridiculous times.