first synthetic life news

[bascule]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

 

From what I can tell from the article, these scientists synthesized the organisms DNA, then implanted it into an existing cell. The cell then functioned normally.

 

Even that seems like a major breakthrough to me, but I'm not really sure about the state of the science.

[Greippi]

On opening this thread my initial thought was "hah! so Venter's done it!" Turns out he has. Impressive stuff, will give the Science article a look later. If they've actually done it's pretty groundbreaking stuff, with massive implications.

[alan2here]

I'm confused by this.

 

Various TED talks, the video "DNA Hacking" as well as at least one "Futures in Biotech" episode all sugest that the following things have been possible for some time.

 

Reading DNA into a computer file.

Creating DNA from a computer file.

Implanting DNA into a cell that has been designed to morph to match the DNA.

The sending of samples to be read, DNA or a cell made from DNA of your choosing being sent by mail order.

Storing sequences as a "component" and combining them to abstract other components and more ambitious functionality.

The abbilty to look up any of these components online and get there base pair sequences.

Performing more complicated queries on archives of base pair series from animals including humans.

Projects to refactor functions found in DNA so that for example two functions don't overlap and to document them.

 

etc...

 

Which leaves me wondering is this somewhat old news that journalists have only just noticed? Or there is something new that was just to technical to elaborate on much.

 

Despite the talk of human error and terror etc... that the BBC seems to have made up it seems positive to inform the public of progress.

[Greippi]

Never before have scientists been able to create an entire artificial genome (ie construct the DNA to contain the genes they want it to contain) and implant it in to a bacterial cell and to actually have it work as a "normal" bacterium.

 

They've done similar with viruses though - I think it was the polio virus they "made" from scratch.

 

HOWEVER: they still had to put the DNA into a pre-existing bacterium (that had had its original genetic material removed). They still aren't able to create an organism entirely from scratch (i.e. construct organelles, cell wall in vitro).

[CharonY]

Quite honestly I do not see too much new compared what they already sold on Mycoplasma earlier. The only difference is that with using existing techniques they generated a long DNA sequence, rather than extracting and modifying. It is a continuation and, as in the other threads, I still maintain that it is not artificial life. The time and work investment is more notable than the actual scientific progress gained by it.

[ecoli]

They've done similar with viruses though - I think it was the polio virus they "made" from scratch

 

Yup. Eckard Wimmer from Stony Brook. Fun fact, I was at the first lecture he gave after publishing these results (as were 20 other high school students).

 

 

 

Here's the JCVI press release about the OP:

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/first-self-replicating-synthetic-bacterial-cell-constructed-by-j-craig-venter-institute-researcher/

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The time and work investment is more notable than the actual scientific progress gained by it.

 

That seems to be Venter's MO. The lab I'm looking for join in grad school often does collaborations with JCVI... should be interesting to see if that mentality follows through.

[Mr Skeptic]

Quite honestly I do not see too much new compared what they already sold on Mycoplasma earlier. The only difference is that with using existing techniques they generated a long DNA sequence, rather than extracting and modifying. It is a continuation and, as in the other threads, I still maintain that it is not artificial life. The time and work investment is more notable than the actual scientific progress gained by it.

 

It's a step in that direction, however. Another step in that direction will be when they design "new" DNA (eg get a cell line to evolve or removing extra genes), and then they could synthesize this "new" DNA and insert it into a cell to make a "new" life form.

[CharonY]

It is simply an upscaling of things done for decades. The technical feat is impressive but it is neither new nor does it contribute to scientific knowledge.

 

Ecoli, I agree. And it worked well, too.

[Genecks]

Maybe it doesn't contribute to scientific progress, but I think it contributes to accessibility. I have often wondered if inserting an entire genome into a cell soup would work. But I didn't know if it was feasible. An increase in accessibility could lead to more people being able to do research. So, perhaps, the new knowledge can be fruitful...

 

Either way, probably easier to get a Bacillus anthracis-like microbe now.

 

In reference to the "artificial life" idea, I'm thinking the new generation of biologists are eventually going to throw away the idea. I don't know why the question is still around. Personhood in relation to sociobiology seems like a bigger issue.

 

*shakes hands*

"Ooh, should we say that the microbe he made has a soul????"

 

Let's hope heaven doesn't have these dastardly microbes.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Genecks

[sciencesimon]

What do you think of the 15 year research that has generated synthetic life?

[alan2here]

It's a step in that direction, however. Another step in that direction will be when they design "new" DNA (eg get a cell line to evolve or removing extra genes), and then they could synthesize this "new" DNA and insert it into a cell to make a "new" life form.

 

That can already be done. With functions smaller than genes, short sequences of base pairs put together to create a DNA strand that describes a functioning lifeform and implanted into a cell that is designed to loose it's identity and become as described by any DNA that it encounters.

[CharonY]

Dolly had its nucleus exchanged, bacteria have been cured from major portions of their genome for a long time (in fact it is so established, I used it as part of undergrad projects). It is essentially a large cloning project. The important part that is not mentioned is that the DNA alone does not define the lifeform but the interaction with the surrounding cells is also crucial. Guess why they used two closely related bacteria instead of just putting it into E. coli?

Artificial life would truly be artificial if the recreate the whole cell, not just manipulate DNA. It would have been slightly more interesting if they took a different cell and put the Mycoplasma genome in there.

[CharonY]

Edit, I merged the threads.

[Variola]

Quite honestly I do not see too much new compared what they already sold on Mycoplasma earlier. The only difference is that with using existing techniques they generated a long DNA sequence, rather than extracting and modifying. It is a continuation and, as in the other threads, I still maintain that it is not artificial life. The time and work investment is more notable than the actual scientific progress gained by it.

 

I agree, I read the paper this morning. I was really impressed with the techniques they used, particularly the methylation. However it isn't that much different to what they did before, except they build the genome from scratch but based on a blueprint form a species related bacterium. we have been changing the bacterial transcriptome for years

If they had synthesized a new genome, or even part of a new genome and made it functional, then I would call it more of a breakthrough, but the hoo-hah over ethics and the possibility of biofuels is pie in the sky.