Reply
Fri 29 Jun, 2007 10:38 am
First artificial life 'within months'
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
29/06/2007
Telegraph UK
Craig Venter likened the process to 'changing a Macintosh computer
into a PC by inserting a new piece of software'
In a development that has triggered unease and excitement in equal measure, scientists in the US took the whole genetic makeup - or genome - of a bacterial cell and transplanted it into a closely related species.
This then began to grow and multiply in the lab, turning into the first species in the process.
The team that carried out the first "species transplant" says it plans within months to do the same thing with a synthetic genome made from scratch in the laboratory.
If that experiment worked, it would mark the creation of a synthetic lifeform.
The scientists want to create new kinds of bacterium to make new types of bugs which can be used as green fuels to replace oil and coal, digest toxic waste or absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
But this pioneering research also triggers unease about the limits of science and the inevitable fears about "playing god," as well as raising the spectre that this technology could one day be abused to create a new generation of bioweapons.
Producing living cells from synthetic genomes of lab-made DNA would require the ability to move and manipulate whole genomes.
To that end, a milestone was passed today by a team led by Craig Venter, the first person to have his entire genetic makeup read, and which included the Nobel prizewinner Ham Smith.
Dr Venter said that, in the light of this success, the culmination of a decade's work, he will be attempting the first transplant of a lab-made genome to create the first artificial life "within months."
Dr Venter said: "We would hope to have the first fuel from synthetic organisms certainly within the decade, possibly within half that time."
The breakthrough occurred at the J Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, the team reports today in the journal Science.
One of its editors called it "a landmark in biological engineering."
Since the 1970s, scientists have moved genes - instructions to make proteins - between different organisms.
But this marks the first time that the entire instruction set, consisting of more than a million "letters" of DNA, has been transplanted, transforming one species of bacterium into another.
They are attempting to build a microbe with the minimal set of genes needed for life, with the goal of then adding other useful genes, such as ones for making biofuels.
It recently submitted broad patents for methods to create a synthetic genome from such lab-made DNA.
In anticipation, the team wanted to develop a way to move a complete genome into a living cell, chosing the simplest and smallest kind, a bacterium.
In all, of the millions of bacteria that they tried the transplant on, it only worked one time in every 150,000.
Dr Venter likened it to "changing a Macintosh computer into a PC by inserting a new piece of software" and stressed it would be more difficult in other kinds of cells, which have enzymes to snip the DNA of invaders.
But he said to achieve the feat, without adding anything more than naked DNA, "is a huge enabling step."
"This is a significant and unexpected advance," commented Robert Holt of the Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, Vancouver, Canada.
"It's a necessary step toward creating artificial life," added microbiologist Fred Blattner of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Antoine Danchin of the Pasteur Institute, Paris, calls the experiment "an exceptional technical feat."
But he told Science "many controls are missing." And that has prevented Glass's team, as acknowledged by Ham Smith, from truly understanding how the introduced DNA reprograms the host cell.
"We are one step closer to synthetic organisms," said Markus Schmidt of the Organisation for International Dialogue, Vienna.
He said the experiment will drive discussions about the safety issues related to synthetic biology and the implications for society.
Dr Venter stressed that the work had been halted for some time for a review to ensure it is ethical, though acknowledged concerns that synthetic biology could pave the way to new kinds of biowarfare.
Is this from a 1950's horror movie?
(shudder)
What are you guys whining about, this is good news!
BumbleBee I am liking your selection of news articles recently
Not so much that it's good news, but these media "breakthroughs" seem one-sided without confirmation or response by other "scientists."
Re: First artificial life 'within months'
First artificial life 'within months' By Roger Highfield, Science Editor wrote:
They are attempting to build a microbe with the minimal set of genes needed for life, with the goal of then adding other useful genes, such as ones for making biofuels.
How many genes are the minimal needed for life? What is the minimal design for life? How have they determined this?
It sounds like they are going to build a bacteria with absolutely zero 'junk' DNA? I wonder if it will begin to evolve when they cultivate it. If it has no 'junk' to work from its ability to create variations could be extremely limited for a long time.
Re: First artificial life 'within months'
rosborne979 wrote:First artificial life 'within months' By Roger Highfield, Science Editor wrote:
They are attempting to build a microbe with the minimal set of genes needed for life, with the goal of then adding other useful genes, such as ones for making biofuels.
How many genes are the minimal needed for life? What is the minimal design for life? How have they determined this?
It sounds like they are going to build a bacteria with absolutely zero 'junk' DNA? I wonder if it will begin to evolve when they cultivate it. If it has no 'junk' to work from its ability to create variations could be extremely limited for a long time.
The extra junk only matters if you want it to be capable of evolving
Re: First artificial life 'within months'
stuh505 wrote:The extra junk only matters if you want it to be capable of evolving
So this organism would start off at a disadvantage, not having any junk to work with. But junk would eventually accumulate...
This story (published online in the journal Science), though only Apple-related in the header, gave at least a break from all the iPhone-mania.
Quote:So this organism would start off at a disadvantage, not having any junk to work with. But junk would eventually accumulate...
Its no different than my home. My home is a record of stages of our lives from pre-child to post child and all the hobbies and diversions between. Theres no real rule that all the codons need occur in groups of three. Maybe all artificial lifeforms will have tetra based enzymes and proteins. Just because our planets life took one direction doesnt mean that lab life couldnt go another.
I see that spendi is standing in the road with his placard that states how TV will rot your childrens minds.
It depends what is meant by TV.
There is TV as a form of electronic binoculars which would only show things that would be happening if TV had never been invented such as Royal Ascot, Wimbledon, possibly wars and other stuff.
And there's TV that is generated within the centres of TV itself. Narcissistic TV one might style it. Obviously there is some overlap as can be seen from comparing how Royal Ascot was covered a long time ago when English gentlemen were in charge and how it is covered now that sideshow barkers have taken over.
TV of the latter sort will rot everybody's mind. Indeed has done. I never watch any of that. Only people who do could possibly think that the idea of artificial life was not pure bullshit and feel the need to make fatuous remarks about those who know it is.
Your remark fm lacks intellectual clarity and shows that you are not aware of the crucial distinction I have made.
You are now though.
Re: First artificial life 'within months'
rosborne979 wrote:stuh505 wrote:The extra junk only matters if you want it to be capable of evolving
So this organism would start off at a disadvantage, not having any junk to work with. But junk would eventually accumulate...
I'm not getting your point...first of all they are not attempting to make a "fit" organism at this point, the article says that are just trying to do a proof of concept.
Secondly, for the purposes described in the article, it would be counter productive to have an organism capable of evolving. We want to be in control, we don't want to create new competitive species that could cause an imbalance in an ecosystem.
Thirdly, no I don't believe you are accurate in saying that extra junk would accumulate -- if I am right in assuming that by extra junk you are referring to non-coding regions of DNA. From what I have read an organism without junk regions would be ephemeral because it means there is no variation in the species so whenever the slightest selective pressure comes that would kill one of them, it kills off the entire species. Therefore, it would be literally impossible for evolution to occur in such a species -- and it would never be able to develop such junk regions.
(edgar pulls up chair to watch dismantling take place)
We're jumpting to square two before one is even reality.
It's bullshit.
They like frightening the aunties.
It's a normal attribute of fiendishly cackling ghouls.
Gotta love spendius's thoughtful and reasoned response and/or refutation of the point. So characteristic of the great man's logic.
cicerone imposter wrote:We're jumpting to square two before one is even reality.
That's because we're not the ones implementing square one...and since when was thinking ahead a bad thing anyway?
UN wrote-
Quote:Gotta love spendius's thoughtful and reasoned response and/or refutation of the point. So characteristic of the great man's logic.
One doesn't think about bullshit or apply reason to it and it is irrefutable.
You stick a notice on it saying "BULLSHIT" and leave it to others to decide whether to get it all over their boots or not.
farmerman wrote:Quote:So this organism would start off at a disadvantage, not having any junk to work with. But junk would eventually accumulate...
Its no different than my home. My home is a record of stages of our lives from pre-child to post child and all the hobbies and diversions between. Theres no real rule that all the codons need occur in groups of three. Maybe all artificial lifeforms will have tetra based enzymes and proteins. Just because our planets life took one direction doesnt mean that lab life couldnt go another.
I know, that's why I asked, what are they going to make?
What 'life' design are they going to start with?
farmerman wrote:I see that spendi is standing in the road with his placard that states how TV will rot your childrens minds.
Ignore him. Otherwise he will turn the discussion to himself and another potentially interesting thread will be polluted beyond repair.