SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
First bacterial genome created entirely with a computer
C. ethensis-2.0 is based on the genome of a well-studied and harmless freshwater bacterium, Caulobacter crescentus, which is a naturally occurring bacterium found in spring water, rivers and lakes around the globe. It does not cause any diseases. C. crescentus is also a model organism commonly used in research laboratories to study the life of bacteria. The genome of this bacterium contains 4,000 genes. Scientists previously demonstrated that only about 680 of these genes are crucial to the survival of the species in the lab. Bacteria with this minimal genome are viable under laboratory conditions.
Beat Christen, Professor of Experimental Systems Biology at ETH Zurich, and his brother, Matthias Christen, a chemist at ETH Zurich, took the minimal genome of C. crescentus as a starting point. They set out to chemically synthesise this genome from scratch, as a continuous ring-shaped chromosome.
[...] To create a DNA molecule as large as a bacterial genome, [...] the scientists at ETH Zurich synthesised 236 genome segments, which they subsequently pieced together.
[...] To synthesise the genome segments in the simplest possible way, and then piece together all segments in the most streamlined manner, the scientists radically simplified the genome sequence without modifying the actual genetic information (at the protein level). There is ample latitude for the simplification of genomes, because biology has built-in redundancies for storing genetic information. For example, for many protein components (amino acids), there are two, four or even more possibilities to write their information into DNA.
The algorithm developed by the scientists at ETH Zurich makes optimal use of this redundancy of the genetic code. Using this algorithm, the researchers computed the ideal DNA sequence for the synthesis and construction of the genome, which they ultimately utilised for their work.
As a result, the scientists seeded many small modifications into the minimal genome, which in their entirety are, however, impressive: more than a sixth of all of the 800,000 DNA letters in the artificial genome were replaced, compared to the "natural" minimal genome. "Through our algorithm, we have completely rewritten our genome into a new sequence of DNA letters that no longer resembles the original sequence. However, the biological function at the protein level remains the same," says Beat Christen.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 02 2019, @12:08PM (8 children)
This is a huge step along the way to testing our real understanding of DNA. Here's how far we are though:
- The researchers did not create a bacterium that could live with the new DNA. Instead, they place the new DNA into natural bacteria.
- They then activated individual DNA sequences from the new DNA, in place of natural sequences. Most of the new sequences performed their biological functions, insofar as triggering protein synthesis.
- They don't know for certain if their simplifications may have destroyed other essential functions of the DNA. They know what worked, but not necessarily what is missing, because the bacteria still had their normal genetics to fall back on.
The real goal is to create bacteria that live and reproduce solely from the synthetic DNA. When we reach that point, creating pure artificial lifeforms will be possible. Scary, but possible. This is an impressive step along the way, but it is only a step.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:09PM (2 children)
>creating pure artificial lifeforms
I have no problems in calling those alive, not even religious problems (BTW, "Pulvis eris" and "I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham" say I am not simply shifting goalposts).
But Pure, they aren't. They are synthetic, that's all. Like a virtual piano plugin. Pure means having a virtual world (as it takes too much in the real one), make up some rules dictating change over time, and have random structures slowly follow the characteristics of lifeforms, growth multiplication adaptation awareness self awareness god awareness, and finally, Jesus Christ awareness.
Easy to troll meatbags should be aware that scientifically speaking the first three steps are sufficient.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:16PM (1 child)
"Pure" in OP's context means that nothing needs to be borrowed from an existing bacterium, embryo, etc.
We will have machines that can create entire genome sequences, organelles, lipid bilayers, etc. from instructions in digital storage and assemble the components together in order to create an organism capable of reproduction or division. Ideally, a single box will accomplish the entire process, without the need for a scientist to mess around with tweezers or needles.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:23PM
That will be interesting, the little Frankenstein box.
I wonder what will they use to boot it.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:16PM (1 child)
Not so scary...
"Experts Agree Giant, Bioengineered Crabs Pose No Threat"
https://youtu.be/-Uq9pp586AE [youtu.be]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:01PM
*Insert* Applicable Starship Troopers reference.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:51PM
A huge step is equivalent to what, 6 small steps?
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday April 02 2019, @09:04PM (1 child)
This will never be possible. There needs to be a bootstrap procedure to get this going which has to be based on existing cells or cell compounds. This is actually perfectly analogous to compiler bootstrapping. The source code of a C compiler (the DNA) will not be able to compile itself (there needs to be a pre-existing compiler).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @09:45PM
So cross compile.
Use existing cells to make the whole set of pieces for a synthetic one.
Given we are cellular machines and have few clues the actual consequences of doing this in the wild, I'm not really happy with someone getting academic kudos for doing this.
Even if they did it in a very controlled environment, if this becomes common, it's only a matter of time before it ends up in the wild.