The Flower Power Behind Gene Silencing

Have you heard the story about some scientists trying to turn purple petunias more purple, and instead the petunias threw a tantrum and turned white?

The theory I heard was that because the method to insert new genes into an organism usually involves using a modified virus, when the plant was “infected” with the extra purple, it’s “immune system” treated the gene like an attack and as a result just it shut down all together – and thus, white flowers.

Textpost that reads: "scientists in the 1990s, putting a Get More Purple gene attached to a harmless plant virus into an already purple petunia: please get more purple the petunia, sensing an apparent honest to god Get More Purple Disease, using the previously undiscovered RNAi antiviral ability to shut down all other purple genes along with it just in case: you put VIRUS in petunia? you infect her with the More Purple?? oh! oh! her children shall bloom white! jail for mother, jail for mother for One Thousand Years!!!!"

IT TURNS OUT THOUGH, it’s a bit more complex than even that – and eventually, this little failed experiment led to the discovery of a major gene editing tool.

So back in the 90’s, the scientist who tried to purple-fy the petunias (Richard Jorgensen) actually added the gene through transfection instead of transduction – essentially meaning they got the gene into the cell by non-viral means.

HOWEVER, despite not actually being exposed to a virus, those petunias did respond like they were being attacked. This is because inserting foreign genetic material is exactly how viruses work, and in response, most organisms’ from plants to worms to humans, have developed protections against it.

And this is especially true for RNA, since that’s what most viruses are made of – and what most cells need to defend against.

A quick overview of RNA, for the unfamiliar. It’s a nucleic acid like DNA (“ribonucleic acid”), and it’s essentially DNA’s little brother. If DNA holds the blueprints for all the different proteins and things a cell needs to make, RNA is the way those instructions are translated and then messaged to the rest of the cell – AKA mRNA. This comes into play with viruses, because they function essentially like spam mail – they attack cells and add their own RNA instructions, which tricks and hijacks the host cell into making whatever the virus wants (usually more of itself). So cells have a defense to combat this.

For one, mRNA on the job only has one strand (instead of 2 like DNA), so that it’s instructions can be read easily. However, nucleic acids come in pairs, so if another strand of RNA happens to come along that has the right matching pair, the two strands can get stuck together like legos – blocking the instructions and stopping the expression of that gene/protein. This is what researchers figured happened with the petunias, and several similar experiments with worms. However, another surprise occurred when researchers Andrew Fire and Craig Mello tried to do a control experiment where they inserted cells with a strand of mRNA that was supposed to have no effect – they still saw gene silencing! 

Looking deeper into it, they found that the cause was actually double strands of RNA that accidentally formed before injection. Apparently these pre-paired RNA strands were even better at stopping gene expression than a single strand – which raised more questions as to why.

And here’s where viral defense come in. Double strands of RNA (dsRNA) don’t really occur normally in cells, but they ARE common in certain viruses. So what these researchers discovered (and won a Nobel Prize for), was that plant and animal cells have a naturally occurring enzyme call Dicer that (as you might guess) finds and dices these dsRNA into little parts; and then it goes even further and takes those un-paired parts and uses them to hunt down and deactivate their partners – effectively erasing whatever virus, protein, or gene that was encoded in the targeted RNA. This is called the RNA interference pathway, or RNAi.

Now it was known at this point that, at least in mammals, introducing long strands of dsRNA for potential gene therapies/medicines wasn’t really possible, since they often triggered a larger immune response. However, learning about this silencing method inside cells allowed scientists to determine that very small strands of dsRNA could be used to reduce and effectively erase a gene or protein. And these small interfering RNA (siRNA) have become key to creating groundbreaking new gene therapies, like treatments for debilitating genetic diseases, HIV, and potentially even cancer. 

Quite a lot, to come from a seemingly failed flower experiment!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#cite_note-Collier9699-73

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-an-experiment-to-change-the-colour-of-a-petunia-led-to-a-breakthrough-in-the-treatment-of-cancer-and-aids-5547175.html

https://www.genengnews.com/insights/plucking-rnai-from-the-gene-silencing-nettle/

https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1096/fj.06-6014rev

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.