The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Starting from scratch: Scientists rebooted bacterial cells by transplanting a synthetic version of the Mycoplasma mycoides genome manufactured in the lab. The synthetic genome includes a marker gene that makes a blue compound, so the synthetic cells form blue colonies (top). The naturally occurring M. mycoides genome lacks that gene, so the wild-type cells form white colonies (bottom).
Science/AAAS
A genome built from scratch is a step toward synthesizing novel organisms.
In the culmination of a project spanning 15 years, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute have engineered the first cell controlled by a synthetic genome.
"This is the first time that the information of a genome sequence has been turned back into life," says Chris Voigt, a synthetic biologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the project. "It's really remarkable."
Using a method developed in 2008, the researchers, led by genomics pioneer Craig Venter, synthesized the genome of a tiny bacterium called Mycoplasma mycoides, containing just over a million DNA base pairs. Next they transplanted the synthetic genome into a related bacterium, Mycoplasma capricolum, in a process they had previously perfected using nonsynthetic chromosomes.
Once the recipient cells incorporated the synthetic genome, they immediately began to carry out the instructions encoded within the genome. The cells manufactured only M. mycoides proteins, and within a few rounds of self-replication, all traces of the recipient species were gone. The results were published Thursday in the online edition of the journal Science.
To distinguish their synthetic genome from the naturally occurring version, the researchers encoded a series of watermarks into the sequence. They began by developing a code for writing the English alphabet, as well as punctuation and numbers, into the language of DNA--a decoding key is included in the sequence itself. Then they wrote in their names, a few quotations, and the address for a website people can visit if they successfully crack the code.
In terms of creating synthetic life, this project is a proof of principle: aside from the watermarks and a handful of gene deletions to reduce the species' ability to cause disease, the synthetic genome essentially recreates a naturally occurring one. Venter hopes that in the future, the synthetic genomic technology can be used to design and develop entirely new organisms, with wide-ranging practical applications.
Venter and his colleagues are working with Novartis and the National Institutes of Health to synthesize cassettes--clusters of genes that could be inserted into a synthetic genome--for every known flu virus in an effort to streamline the vaccine manufacturing process. They envision a system where, if a new strain such as H1N1 emerged, developing a vaccine would be as straightforward as shuffling genes encoding the relevant viral fragments into a synthetic genome. This could then yield a cell that could be used to quickly manufacture the product.
Synthetic Genome and Synthetic Life?
I have problems with both of these terms as they are used here. First, I don't believe this qualifies as a synthetic genome. In my mind a synthetic genome would be one designed by humans, not merely a copy of an existing natural genome with some graffiti added. (The names and quotes and so on.)
Also, I feel the terms synthetic life and synthetic genomes are not good to begin with. Engineered life form would be a much better description for any life form we might create. Maybe a nice acronym like HEL or HELF (Human Engineered Life, Human Engineered Life Form).
Using the word "synthetic" seems a poor choice to me and could lead to less humane treatment of engineered life forms which will likely eventually be much advanced from simple bacteria.
Calling something alive synthetic seems demeaning. Calling it engineered implies purpose.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
carl
2 Comments
Did Craig Venter just become an ID theorist ?
Venter was quoted as saying "The notion that this is possible means bacterial cells are software-driven biological machines. If you change the software, you build a new machine. I'm still amazed by it."
I've been following the debate between the Intelligent Design and Darwin camp for a while (Innocent bystander here), and this is the sort of thing the ID side has been arguing for a long time (i.e. software requires a designer somewhere).
Reply
chrisjmiller
63 Comments
Re: Did Craig Venter just become an ID theorist ?
Darwinian random selection processes have been used for many years to produce algorithms. It's a helpful technique in areas where the problem is not well understood, such as pattern recognition.
ID's problem is that it's not a scientific theory. If you wish to believe that the Earth was created billions of years ago (or yesterday) by a race of pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent beings (to borrow a phrase from Douglas Adams), there are no testable predictions arising from this statement. Whatever the state of affairs in the real world, it can be said to fit with the ID hypothesis and there is no experiment I can perform that will support this view or demonstrate its falsity.
Reply
Asclaepius
53 Comments
Re: Did Craig Venter just become an ID theorist ?
any tiny baby incremental genomic steps lifting present day physicians above cannibalistic organ donor replacement practices to prolong life are refreshing and welcome....
Reply