
Researchers unravel the biosynthesis of psilocybin - robin_reala
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/08/Magic-mushroomenzyme-mystery-solved.html
======
dharma1
Always wondered what will happen to drug use and trade when at some point not
too far in the future we start to have GM yeast that can produce opioids,
cannabinoids, and psychedelics easily at anyone's home.

YC SS 18 anyone, disrupting the $435 billion global drugs trade? :D

~~~
mirimir
Better yet, the ability to integrate synthesis in your body. So you can trip
whenever you like. Burroughs predicted that decades ago.

~~~
std_throwaway
Our body already has this ability but does not use it often.

~~~
mirimir
I'm sure that our bodies produce molecules that interact with the same
receptors that psilocybin does. But that doesn't mean that our bodies produce
psilocybin.

~~~
CuriouslyC
Psilocin is 4-hydroxy-DMT, and psilocybin is just phosphorylated psilocin. DMT
is itself just dimethyl tryptamine, which is a modified serotonin. Serotonin
itself is itself just modified tryptophan (without the hydroxyl group). The
body produces small amounts of DMT naturally, I wouldn't be surprised if that
is also the case for Psilocybin. Biochemistry is messy and small amounts of
many "unintended" products are created.

------
sigotirandolas
There are already tons of similar psychedelics available that are produced
synthetically, including the extremely similar (if not identical, in terms of
active metabolites and subjective experience) 4-AcO-DMT.

Still, it's always good to see progress in this area, and for medical research
I guess it's not acceptable to use analogues because "it should be similar!"
isn't a medically sound reason to use an analog instead of the better
researched psylocibin.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Aren't there a number of pharmaceutical drugs that are exactly "it should be
similar"?

The benzodiazepines spring to mind, as do many of the SSRI drugs. Amphetamine
is chemically rated to that from which it is derived: ephedrine.

~~~
tribby
no. drugs that act on GABAA, serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine receptors
individually don't seem to affect the whole of the brain the way psychedelics
do,[0] which we didn't really know about until 2016. from the available
literature, which is scarce, it seems like psychedelics are more analogous to
something like transcranial magnetic stimulation, which also "wakes up" and
potentially even heals the prefrontal cortex. it's too bad it's so hard to
study medical applications of these drugs.

0\.
[http://www.pnas.org/content/113/17/4853.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/113/17/4853.full)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I'm confused as to what you are disagreeing with here.

I was responding, in the general sense, to the claim that _for medical
research I guess it 's not acceptable to use analogues because "it should be
similar!" isn't a medically sound reason to use an analogue_. This statement,
evidently, doesn't map well to the field of pharmacology.

The benzodiazepines comprise at least twenty different chemicals in five
classes.[1] Structural analogues[2] are as common as horse shit in medicine
and medical research. Structural analogues are also present in the SSRI class
of drugs[3].

Psilocybin and dimethyltryptamine are structural analogues. It's unsurprising
that their effects are _broadly similar_ when ingested orally.

With regards to your comment _"... don't seem to affect the whole of the brain
the way psychedelics do which we didn't really know about until 2016"_...
Surely that was evident to anyone who'd tried amphetamine at least once and
mushrooms or LSD or DMT at least once. Amphetamine can be compared to
caffeine, and even at high doses it doesn't really alter your way of
perceiving the world. Where as the psychedelics, at sufficiently large doses,
can be likened to being fucked open to God by Jesus, while riding a
fluorescent unicorn and as you watch the universe unfold.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzodiazepine#Common_types](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzodiazepine#Common_types)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_analog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_analog)

3\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#List_of_agents)

~~~
tribby
sorry, after re-reading the op I can see I misinterpreted your comment to mean
SSRIs, benzodiazepines, and psilocybin had a similar effect on the brain. we
don't disagree.

------
alextheparrot
For those interested, YC has invested in a few synthetic organism companies.
Ginkgo Bioworks (YC) is probably the most notable, they've raised a good
amount of money on this platform. Teewinot is also working on biosythentic
cannibis.

I wouldn't get your hopes up, biosythensis is a much messier and less defined
process than chemical synthesis, meaning the route to market is much more
rugged. There are some cool use cases that may arise - such as rust eating
bacteria - but in general I'd expect an experienced synthetic chemist to be a
more economy favorable route to most chemicals. Partial synthesis, where a
chemist works with a partial product produced in yeast, might yield good
results in some edge cases.

------
Baeocystin
I am glad to see research like this is moving forward. The potential benefits
really are huge.

------
trapperkeeper74
_Biosynthesis_. Ah. Here's a sythensis from 2003:

 _Concise Large-Scale Synthesis of Psilocin and Psilocybin, Principal
Hallucinogenic Constituents of “Magic Mushroom”_

[http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/np030059u](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/np030059u)

------
joshribakoff
Synthetic cannabinoids like JWH018 are a failure , I've tried it. Nothing like
the real thing. And it's reported to cause psychotic episodes. I don't think I
would trust synthetic mushrooms. Regular mushrooms can already be very nerve
wracking

~~~
throwaway91111
There are already psilocybin prodrugs that are legal on the market that are
qualitatively identical after metabolizing. Pre-metabolism there may be
distinct phenomena and concerns, but it degrades quickly.

Cannabinoids are different entirely; i can't speak to the dangers there,
particularly when combustion is involved.

------
spraak
Is there any further research in this space that you could recommend worth
reading? It's very interesting.

------
whatnotests
Hopefully they can make it taste better?

~~~
nugga
I grind mine to ~dust and pack them in 0.3 g gelatine capsules - no taste and
1 is just enough for microdosing.

~~~
leroy_masochist
Do you get any meaningful work benefit from a single 0.3g capsule? That sounds
low even for a microdose.

~~~
nugga
It is possible I'm more sensitive to its effects for various reasons but ime
one capsule starts working in 30-45 minutes and I get a noticeable effect
affecting mood and bodily sensations. 1 capsule certainly gets me more in
touch with the internal world when meditating.

I don't know how much one should talk about this stuff on open forums but it
certainly can be a shortcut to achieving or visiting some powerful states of
experience, which may not be always be or seem positive at least during, so
Ymmv and be safe.

