https://phys.org/news/2019-12-tomato-id ... outer.html

What do you think?
My thought: the taste can't be there.

Nan6b wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:58 pm My thought: the taste can't be there.

Why?

Looks like they have fruit instead of leaves!
It has often been said that it's hard to breed determinate tomatoes that taste good, because of the higher fruit/shoot ratio. That doesn't seem to be really true. OTOH, with no leaves at all, where are they getting the energy to make sugars etc.
I would say it's a survival food - especially at 40 days! Micros are not that fast.
Probably as close to a gourmet tomato as a MRE is to a gourmet meal.

The article says it too "But Lippman's lab knew it could only modify the SP sister genes only so much before trading flavor or yield for even smaller plants."
So I guess they at least tried to make them "tasty enough".
Some tomatoes could be a substitute for a lemon. A sour food has uses too...

arnorrian wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:44 pm

Nan6b wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2019 6:58 pm My thought: the taste can't be there.

Why?

It's hard to make an early with good taste, and the lack of leaves wouldn't help.

I didn't get from the text that it has no leaves.

That's a plant pulled out by the roots in the first picture. Maybe there were more leaves & they took them off for the pic, but how much leaf-per-fruit ratio could there be?

Yes, it's weird.

I saw this on another site...

Those roots have never seen soil.

I don't see a benefit to this short plant stature unless grown on shelves with artificial light. Tomato is an ideal vegetable for urban growing as it is, especially if single top strict de-suckering is used with lean and drop trellising. My own main garden plot is just 15 by 1,5 m.

If they want to fix tomato's problem with gene editing it would be much more useful to do something about molds and stinkbugs.

It would be great material for the dfollet and those working with the micro tomatoes.

Do you suppose that ge?ne editing makes it a GMO

Nan6b wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:09 pm Do you suppose that ge?ne editing makes it a GMO

Yes it does.
Did you know the Texas Ruby Red grapefruit is a GMO?
That's right they modified the genes in the seeds with radiation.

I read somewhere that there are two terms in the US; genetic engineering vs genetic modification. GE does not introduce any viral or bacterial DNA, it simply modifies the existing genes in the plant, while GMO has some bits of agrobacterium or similar that remain in the organism.

GMO is kind of an ambiguous term that is also a misnomer. Literally, it's genetically modified organism, but in practical (and I believe legal) use, unless something has changed (which is possible!) it doesn't include all forms of genetic modification (e.g. it doesn't include plant breeding, natural selection, hybridization, chromosome doubling, sports, and mutations, purposeful or not). It's used like a synonym for genetically engineered organisms and/or genetic engineering.

Gene editing is a form of genetic engineering. So, the plants would be GMOs.

Some kinds of mutagenesis might be considered genetic engineering, if they include introducing DNA from other organisms.

So Bower you are saying you read that an organism that has had it's genes (((((modified))))) without introduction of an other organism isn't (((((modified))))) it is engineered?

[mention]worth1[/mention] Be careful not to use multiple parenthesis around people's names. I won't get into the reasons, but they are very dark.

arnorrian wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:24 am @worth1 Be careful not to use multiple parenthesis around people's names. I won't get into the reasons, but they are very dark.

Well it used to mean a cyber hug but as of late folks (of which I'm not affiliated with) have used it for something else.
Also I use it along with it;s original intent in grammar.

Ok, I just wanted to make sure you know.