Others are pursuing a far more radical approach. Soon after the State of the Union speech, Patrinos left the DOE to become president of Synthetic Genomics, a startup in Rockville, MD, founded by Craig Venter, the iconoclastic biologist who led the private effort to decode the human genome. Synthetic Genomics is in hot pursuit of a bacterium "that will do everything," as Venter puts it. With funding from Synthetic Genomics, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute are adding and subtracting genes from natural organisms using the recombinant techniques employed by other microbial engineers. In the long run, however, Venter is counting on an approach more in keeping with his reputation as a trailblazer. Rather than modify existing organisms to produce ethanol and other potential biofuels, he wants to build new ones.
Natural selection, argues Venter, does not design life forms to efficiently perform the multitudinous functions their genes encode, much less to carry out a dedicated task like ethanol production. Consequently, a huge amount of effort and expense goes toward figuring out how to shut down complex, often redundant genetic pathways that billions of years of evolution have etched into organisms. Why not start with a genome that has only the minimal number of genes needed to sustain life and add to it what you need? "With a synthetic cell, you only have the pathways in there that you want to be in there," he says.
Synthetic Genomics' approach is based on research that Venter's Institute for Genomic Research conducted on a microörganism called Mycoplasma genitalium in the late 1990s. The microbe, which dwells in the human urinary tract, has only 517 genes. While that's the smallest genome seen in any life form known, researchers in Venter's group showed that the organism could survive even after they had knocked out almost half of its protein-coding genes (some genes code not for proteins but for other biomolecules that perform regulatory functions within the cell). Using the DNA sequence of this "minimal genome" as a guide, they are now attempting to synthesize an artificial chromosome that, inserted into a hollowed-out cell, will lead to a viable life form. Once they are over this first hurdle, they plan to build synthesized, task-specific genetic pathways into the genome, much the way one might load software onto a computer's operating system. Rather than create spreadsheets or do word processing, however, such "biologically based software" would instruct the cell to break down cellulose to produce ethanol or carry out other useful functions. "This is a totally new field on the verge of explosion," says Venter.
Among biofuels, ethanol is the established front-runner, but various types of microbes also produce hydrogen, methane, biodiesel, and even electricity -- which means they could be genetically engineered to produce more of these resources. At the University of California, Berkeley, bioengineer Jay Keasling and his colleagues are proposing to design organisms that pump out a fuel no natural microbe makes, one that offers some alluring advantages over ethanol: gasoline. Its virtues as a fuel are proven, of course, and the ability to produce it from waste wood and waste paper, which Keasling thinks is feasible, could reduce countries' dependence on foreign oil. And unlike ethanol, which is water soluble and must be transported in trucks lest it pick up water in pipes, biologically generated octane could be economically piped to consumers, just like today's gas.
"Ethanol has a place, but it's probably not the best fuel in the long term," says Keasling. "People have been using it for a long time to make wine and beer. But there's no reason we have to settle for a 5,000-year-old fuel."
In the short term, some advances in biology and engineering are needed before fuels made from biomass will be practical and competitive with fossil fuels. But in the longer term, says Venter, "we're limited mostly by our imagination, not by the limits of biology."
Jamie Shreeve's most recent book is The Genome War.
Comments
Guest (Lee McClune) on 07/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
interested, see > sorganol.com < ,
been trying to get some Government support, but have been unable to get any help,, it not only has High Potential, it is Very Low Cost to Grow, and is drought resistant, and can be grown anywhere in the US, with no exotic chemicals/enzymes needed,,
Sugar cane can only be grown in tropical areas,, LFM, knoxville,Ia
Guest (plugged in) on 07/21/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Mike) on 07/21/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Also - what temp will the ethanol boil/distill off at and at what % efficiency? Otherwise - good stuff!
Guest (Marty Riske) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
ssrao@nrcsorghum.res.in on 08/18/2006 at 6:55 AM
1
reoplan on 08/21/2006 at 5:56 PM
2
Let's chat. I'll explain all when we do.
info@reoplan.com or waxman44@verizon.net
Send me your contact information.
Thanks,
Alan
sweetsorghum on 09/19/2006 at 7:36 PM
1
My e-mail is flinqian@hotmail.com
waygmcgo on 11/06/2006 at 5:29 PM
1
Guest (sirlanse) on 07/21/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Mike) on 07/21/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Alex) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Keith) on 08/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
While i generally disagree with ongoing government funded research programs ware there is little to no incentive for results and often the incentive to use up all the monies given in yearly budgets in fear that next year those budgets will be reduced, all with out regard to how well the monies are used in research.
The use of prize monies by the government, would provide incentives to companies to compete in areas ware the people want the country to go.
reoplan on 08/21/2006 at 6:02 PM
2
You are absolutely right. And, there are some business models out there that form the blueprint you suggest we need. Interestingly, the model has nothing whatsoever to do with the petroleum industry. I want to talk to Lee first. Then we'll determine which way to go. I've been down that road and I'm proud to say my thumbprint is on one of them. In this case, Yankee Doodle HAS A FARM!
Guest (Jim D) on 07/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Mike) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Sean) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (John) on 07/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Either way, if it is something that can survive "in the wild", I can see it being very dangerous to crops.
Guest (C. Scott Miller) on 07/26/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (R. Kellmer) on 08/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
1. Grow the grain and harvest it. That's food for people.
2. Havest the stalks and use enzymes to convert to ethanol. There's energy.
3. Feed the byproducts of the ethanol process to cattle or other animals. That gives us more food.
4. Use the manure from the cattle to produce methane and use it to run a generator. Sell the electricity to the power grid.
jhawkmurph on 09/01/2006 at 10:18 AM
2
Wood chips are suggested and are fine, but eventally, those with septic tanks, who need to convert NH3-nitrogen, to NOx-nitrogen, will be forced by EPA, et al, to compete in that deciduous market.
But, I do like the octane route, but favor the bio-diesel route from algae (Green Fuels). TPM
Cpt_Nemo on 01/22/2007 at 2:08 AM
14
A woman received a MacArthur genius award for her pioneering research on the communication pathways between bacteria.
I believe that it is possible to find and develop a cooperative slime mould that has as its primary purpose conversion of nutrient rich fluids - the unprocessed sap from sugar cane, or other plants that have a high proportion of sugars - into ethanol. With tuning (selective breding) and creative use of microfluidics the systems could be designed to increase the ratio of ethanol to other byproducts that are unwanted. It should be arranged with the provision of an intake reservoir and also a reservoir that collects its continual output.
In otherwords, I believe that it should mimic the urinary(ethanol output) and digestion(consuming juice to be processed)/excretion(elimination of digested material) that is found in multicellular lifeforms.