# Tiny Green Bug May Be First Photosynthetic Animal



## micropage7 (Aug 21, 2012)

Pea aphids may have an unprecedented ability to harvest sunlight, and use the energy for metabolic purposes. It would make it the only species of animal known to have photosynthesis-like powers.

It comes down to carotenoids, which are a type of pigment used in animals for crucial functions like vision, bone growth and vitamin production. All known animals obtain these by eating the plants, algae and fungi that naturally synthesize the orange-red compounds.
Back in 2010, University of Arizona biologists researcher Nancy Moran and Tyler Jarvik discovered that pea aphids can make their own carotenoids, like a plant. “What happened is a fungal gene got into an aphid and was copied,”said Moran in a press release.


Entomologist Alain Robichon, of the Sophia Agrobiotech Institute in France, wanted to find out why the insects make such metabolically expensive chemicals.

Carotenoids are responsible for aphid body color, and the researchers found that insects changed color depending on environmental conditions. In optimal environments, aphids make a medium amount of carotenoids and come out orange. In the cold, the insects have a high level of carotenoids and are green. In areas with limited resources, aphids are almost devoid of the pigment and are born white.

The team then measured the aphids’ levels of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) — a way to measure energy transfer in living organisms — and received striking results. Green aphids make significantly more ATP than white ones, and orange aphids made more ATP while exposed to sunlight than when kept in the dark.

The researchers also crushed the orange aphids and purified their carotenoids, to demonstrate that it was these extracts that could absorb light and pass this energy on. This all suggests that the synthesized pigments may contribute to a system of photo-induced electron transfer, where the aphids can harness energy from the sunlight.

The team warns that more research will be needed before we can be sure that aphids truly have photosynthesis-like abilities. The researchers also speculate that the ability might be used as a back-up, during times of environmental stress
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/green-aphid-photosynthesis/


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 21, 2012)

I wonder where they live.  Aphids are a serious problem in the midwest of the USA.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Aug 21, 2012)

"Problem" is subjective. The aphids were there long before the cornfields.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 21, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> "Problem" is subjective. The aphids were there long before the cornfields.



And the cornfields feed u... so.. no


----------



## OnePostWonder (Aug 21, 2012)

ShiBDiB said:


> And the cornfields feed u... so.. no



Though corn contains no nutritional benefit.  One wonders why we consume it...*ponders*...

Short story: I once had a pure can sugar Pepsi from Thailand.  The reason pure can sugar isn't used more often is because it isn't nearly as abundant as corn syrup is.  I'm sure the way corn is subsidized doesn't help much either.

Pretty interesting post OP.  Good find.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 21, 2012)

inb4 gene therapy dieting fad where people survive off sunlight alone (and turn transparent)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 21, 2012)

OnePostWonder said:


> Though corn contains no nutritional benefit.  One wonders why we consume it...*ponders*...
> 
> Short story: I once had a pure can sugar Pepsi from Thailand.  The reason pure can sugar isn't used more often is because it isn't nearly as abundant as corn syrup is.  I'm sure the way corn is subsidized doesn't help much either.
> 
> Pretty interesting post OP.  Good find.


Most people prefer the taste of HFCS over sugar.  Sugar is also more expensive (usually).


----------



## OnePostWonder (Aug 21, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Most people prefer the taste of HFCS over sugar.  Sugar is also more expensive (usually).



Need sauce on first sentence.  For science.

Serious.


----------



## sneekypeet (Aug 21, 2012)

Mussels said:


> inb4 gene therapy dieting fad where people survive off sunlight alone (and turn transparent)



Have you seen many PC users? most are already pale enough to get sunlight straight through


----------



## Mussels (Aug 21, 2012)

sneekypeet said:


> Have you seen many PC users? most are already pale enough to get sunlight straight through



they'd starve to death, no sunlight in nerdville.


----------



## Norton (Aug 21, 2012)

Mussels said:


> they'd starve to death, no sunlight in nerdville.



Isn't sunlight available as DLC?


----------



## Nordic (Aug 21, 2012)

This is cool stuff. I find it interesting how they got the gene from a mold.


----------



## garyinhere (Aug 21, 2012)

sneekypeet said:


> Have you seen many PC users? most are already pale enough to get sunlight straight through



Really?


----------



## entropy13 (Aug 21, 2012)

sneekypeet said:


> Have you seen many PC users? most are already pale enough to get sunlight straight through



*Looks at myself*

Nope, still dark brown.


----------



## Frick (Aug 21, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> *Looks at myself*
> 
> Nope, still dark brown.



Then you're not a serious nerd.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 21, 2012)

OnePostWonder said:


> Need sauce on first sentence.  For science.
> 
> Serious.


Mountain Dew vs Mounten Dew Throwback
Pepsi vs Pepsi Throwback

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/pepsi-taste-test_n_1327579.html


> Our team of editors recently conducted another taste test, this time between Pepsi (with HFCS) and Pepsi Throwback (with sugar). We fully expected Pepsi Throwback to come out on top, just like Mexican Coke. Surprisingly, *we were wrong*.
> 
> Twenty editors blind taste-tested the two colas, side by side, and found ...
> •50 percent of our tasters could tell the difference between regular Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback.
> •55 percent of our tasters preferred regular Pepsi to Pepsi Throwback.


American taste buds have adapted to the flavor of HFCS in iconic food items.  When we taste those products, we expect the HFCS flavor, not sugar.  We don't like change.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 21, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Mountain Dew vs Mounten Dew Throwback
> Pepsi vs Pepsi Throwback
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/pepsi-taste-test_n_1327579.html
> ...



Interesting tangent you guys went onto in this thread. Well when in Rome... I prefer sugar over hfcs personally. Americans can switch back to sugar if they so wanted. Just needs a media blitz and celebrities to make it fashionable.


----------



## OnePostWonder (Aug 22, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Mountain Dew vs Mounten Dew Throwback
> Pepsi vs Pepsi Throwback
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/pepsi-taste-test_n_1327579.html
> ...



Is the 55 percent that preferred HFCS of the 50 percent that could tell the difference?  It would have to be if only 50 percent could tell the difference; you can't prefer one over the other if you can't tell the difference.

Also, the Pepsi Throwback used cane and beet sugar, but this article states that people prefer the taste of cane sugar over beet sugar:

San Francisco Chronicle

The Pepsi I tried was pure cane sugar.  I'd be interested to see the study conducted again with the HFCS Pepsi against a pure cane sugar Pepsi.

Also, on the note of not liking change...lol, given the current President's candidacy rode on the back of "change".


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 22, 2012)

10/20 thought they didn't taste the same
11/20 said they prefer HFCS

Try it yourself.  They only did a sample size of 20. 


People say they want "change" all the time (think of all the changes people want to Windows Vista/7/8) but when change actually happens (all three changed something major), people resent the fact it isn't the same.  It's human nature and that played out in Obama's presidency too (once people saw what his flavor of "change" really was, they don't like it).


----------



## techtard (Aug 22, 2012)

Aren't there also slugs that eat plankton and absorb the photosynthesis genes? I thought I read about that years ago.


----------



## fritoking (Aug 22, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Mountain Dew vs Mounten Dew Throwback
> Pepsi vs Pepsi Throwback
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/pepsi-taste-test_n_1327579.html
> ...



i prefer the pepsi throwback hands down.....


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Aug 22, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Most people prefer the taste of HFCS over sugar.



Are you fucking kidding? Gee you're in Iowa...no shock there.


----------



## OnePostWonder (Aug 22, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 10/20 thought they didn't taste the same
> 11/20 said they prefer HFCS
> 
> Try it yourself.  They only did a sample size of 20.
> ...



I know you didn't conduct the study, but that doesn't make any sense.

It's technically incorrect to say that 10/20 thought they tasted the same because the study says that number of people "could tell the difference".  I read the study a couple times to make sure I hadn't missed anything (explicit or implied).  To further ground this point, "Pepsi makes no such claim" as to them tasting the same (Pepsi and Pepsi Throwback).  I'll gladly "Doh!" if you can point out where it said people thought they tasted the same.

Also, I really seem to be missing how 11/20 can prefer one over the other if only 10/20 could tell the difference...if you can't tell the difference, you can't prefer anything; that is to say, you're just flipping a mental coin.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 22, 2012)

11+10=21


----------



## OnePostWonder (Aug 22, 2012)

james888 said:


> 11+10=21



Umm...yeah, I suppose it does.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 22, 2012)

10/20 = 50%
11/20 = 55%

This isn't rocket science.  Anyway, it's off topic.




techtard said:


> Aren't there also slugs that eat plankton and absorb the photosynthesis genes? I thought I read about that years ago.


I vaguely recall that too.  What's different is that the slugs and plankton (if that's what it was) had a mutually beneficial relationship not unlike the good bacteria in our intestines that help us digest food.  This is a genetic mutation where beneficial genes in a mold supposedly integrated into into the genetic makeup of an animal.  It's a symbiosis rather than a relationship of convience--truly remarkable if proven true.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 22, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 10/20 = 50%
> 11/20 = 55%
> 
> This isn't rocket science.  Anyway, it's off topic.



That is my point. There wasn't 105%.


----------



## OnePostWonder (Aug 22, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 10/20 = 50%
> 11/20 = 55%
> 
> This isn't rocket science.  Anyway, it's off topic.



Well, since you decided to be pricky about it, I'll spell it out for you.  

I know how to convert fractions to percentages.

I have a sample of 20 people.  I give each person 2 cups, one with Pepsi, the other with Pepsi Throwup (intentional 'cause I'm bored).  Ten of those individuals say, "Hey man, I can tell these are two different things".  Good.  The other 10 can't tell that one is Pepsi and the other is Pepsi Throwup.  So they're not going to have a preference; it's six-one-half-dozen-the-other (SO MANY DASHES) for them.

So I go back to the first 10 and ask which they prefer.

While I was typing this, I went back and reread the article.  I think where I was getting hung up - and this wasn't made very clear - was that "55 percent of our tasters preferred regular Pepsi to Pepsi Throwback", which suggests a preference for one ingredient over the other on the name alone, not that 55 percent of our tasters preferred *the taste of* regular Pepsi to Pepsi Throwback.

To reiterate, you simply can't have a preference if you can't *taste* the difference.  Since only 10 could taste the difference, your percentage is going to be less than or equal to that number of individuals who prefer HFCS.

Do you understand what I'm saying, Ford?

I apologize to OP for semi-jacking your thread.  I'll gladly take it to PM if no one else finds it somewhat relevant.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 22, 2012)

OnePostWonder said:


> Well, since you decided to be pricky about it, I'll spell it out for you.
> 
> I know how to convert fractions to percentages.
> 
> ...



I get it now. All 20 tastes both.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 22, 2012)

james888 said:


> That is my point. There wasn't 105%.


It's two questions.  20/20 on each would be equal to 100%.  Again, not rocket science.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Aug 22, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Mountain Dew vs Mounten Dew Throwback
> Pepsi vs Pepsi Throwback
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/pepsi-taste-test_n_1327579.html
> ...



Tried MT Dew Throwback, stuff made me feel sick. Was so damn sweet, wasn't as smooth. I can barely sip that stuff rather than actually take a good drink out of it. I bought a 12 pack probably 6 months ago, still think I got like 5 cans in my fridge, had no pop the other day and grabbed one, think I drank a 1/4 of it then threw it away.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 22, 2012)

My experience was similar.  I could go through a case of Mountain Dew in 2 days (or less if I dump it all into a big mug).  It took about a week to finish Mountain Dew Throwback.  Haven't bought it again since.

It's completely based on preference.  Pretty much every casual study I've seen, preference is about 50/50.




OnePostWonder said:


> Well, since you decided to be pricky about it, I'll spell it out for you.
> 
> I know how to convert fractions to percentages.
> 
> ...


I tried finding something with a broader test group and double-blind taste testing...more scientific.  The HuffPo test appears to be the largest with 20 but their methodolgy is unclear.  You are debating their methology and I refuse to because it involves signficantly reading between the lines for data that isn't specified.

As I said: do your own blind taste test.  The results may surprise you.


----------



## OnePostWonder (Aug 22, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> My experience was similar.  I could go through a case of Mountain Dew in 2 days (or less if I dump it all into a big mug).  It took about a week to finish Mountain Dew Throwback.  Haven't bought it again since.
> 
> It's completely based on preference.  Pretty much every casual study I've seen, preference is about 50/50.
> 
> ...



I'm debating the numbers more-so than the methodology, though I wasn't really debating it with you since, as I've already said, you didn't conduct the study.

A simple, "I see what you mean" would've sufficed, but for some reason you'd rather not address anything I've said directly; as such is the case, if we were debating, I don't know how you could get anywhere.  I think you feel as though your saying that you agree with what I said, that it wasn't made very clear, is somehow conceding.  You said yourself it was *unclear*, as I said, but then you go on to say you refuse to debate it; it isn't much of a debate when you've just agreed with the other person.

I'm not cutting down on you, just trying to provide some constructive criticism.  I think we've reached the point where anything we'd like to discuss further with regards to this should be done so in PM.


----------

