Genomic science has greatly enhanced our understanding of the biological world. It is enabling researchers to "read" the genetic code of organisms from all branches of life by sequencing the four letters that make up DNA. Sequencing genomes has now become routine, giving rise to thousands of genomes in the public databases. In essence, scientists are digitizing biology by converting the A, C, T, and G's of the chemical makeup of DNA into 1's and 0's in a computer. But can one reverse the process and start with 1's and 0's in a computer to define the characteristics of a living cell? We set out to answer this question.
In the field of chemistry, once the structure of a new chemical compound is determined by chemists, the next critical step is to attempt to synthesize the chemical. This would prove that the synthetic structure had the same function of the starting material. Until now, this has not been possible in the field of genomics. Structures have been determined by reading the genetic code, but they have never been able to be verified by independent synthesis.
In 2003, JCVI successfully synthesized a small virus that infects bacteria. By 2008, the JCVI team was able to synthesize a small bacterial genome; however they were unable to activate that genome in a cell at that time.
Now, this scientific team headed by Drs. Craig Venter, Hamilton Smith and Clyde Hutchison have achieved the final step in their quest to create the first synthetic bacterial cell. In a publication in Science magazine, Daniel Gibson, Ph.D. and a team of 23 additional researchers outline the steps to synthesize a 1.08 million base pair Mycoplasma mycoides genome, constructed from four bottles of chemicals that make up DNA. This synthetic genome has been "booted up" in a cell to create the first cell controlled completely by a synthetic genome.
The work to create the first synthetic bacterial cell was not easy, and took this team approximately 15 years to complete. Along the way they had to develop new tools and techniques to construct large segments of genetic code, and learn how to transplant genomes to convert one species to another. The 1.08 million base pair synthetic M. mycoides genome is the largest chemically defined structure ever synthesized in the laboratory.
While this first construct—dubbed M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0, is a proof of concept, the tools and technologies developed to create this cell hold great promise for application in so many critical areas. Throughout the course of this work, the team contemplated, discussed, and engaged in outside review of the ethical and societal implications of their work.
The ability to routinely write the software of life will usher in a new era in science, and with it, new products and applications such as advanced biofuels, clean water technology, and new vaccines and medicines. The field is already having an impact in some of these areas and will continue to do so as long as this powerful new area of science is used wisely. Continued and intensive review and dialogue with all areas of society, from Congress to bioethicists to laypeople, is necessary for this field to prosper.
Why do I have visions of the next Bubonic Plague .....?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: Why do I have visions of the next Bubonic Plague .....?
LOL.. me too. I just envision this man-made thing getting loose and causing havoc.. maybe I watch too much sci-fi.
Night of the Living dead or something .......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Much like a computer program (which is how they initially made the genome), it will only perform the actions that the programmers code tells it to perform. However, since this a replicating organism, it is now governed by evolutionary principles. So it is plausible (albeit highly improbable) that a synthetic organism could turn pathogenic.
I'd be interested in someone offering their viewpoint in regards to the fact that this group of people created a living organism from a few building blocks.
Well, without getting too deep into it.. Scientifically I think it was inevitable. Also scientifically I think it's really cool. Big picture and looking down the road 20-30 years it scares the hell out of me because of what it can be used for.
I honestly don't know how accurate you are in your assertion that it will only do what its programmed to do (at least at the start before it begins changing) but militarily that means it could probably be programmed to do some pretty nasty crap.
And while I'm not a member of the tin foil hat club, I do not trust our government, our military, big corporations, or mankind in general with this kind of ability..
Quote: Much like a computer program (which is how they initially made the genome), it will only perform the actions that the programmers code tells it to perform. However, since this a replicating organism, it is now governed by evolutionary principles. So it is plausible (albeit highly improbable) that a synthetic organism could turn pathogenic.
I'd be interested in someone offering their viewpoint in regards to the fact that this group of people created a living organism from a few building blocks.
It's extremely cool, and extremely dangerous, but it also has the potential to actually move medicine beyond the stone age once we master the techniques.
I've often thought of organisms much the same as a computer program.... we're all just a collection of electrical objects with pre-defined funionality. The primary difference being that an organism exists in the material world. Once we learn the language with which things are constructed, there's really no limit whatsoever to what we can create... which, again, is really cool and really scary.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
I saw an ad for this last night but I'll have to check the exact details as I was dozing in and out when I saw it...
The Science Channel is running back to back shows on this with the first being an educational show on how all of this came about and the second hour is going to be a Q&A (honestly not sure who is asking and answering though)... Look for it, it was either June 2 or 3 at 8-9 and then the Q&A from 9-10 I think.. I'll try to find our for sure but look for it.
It looks really interesting if you are like me and you find stuff like this cool but don't have a ton of time to devote to tracking it and reading about it...
Quote: I honestly don't know how accurate you are in your assertion that it will only do what its programmed to do (at least at the start before it begins changing) but militarily that means it could probably be programmed to do some pretty nasty crap.
Are there chances of cross reaction with other chemicals? Sure. That's something seen in pharmacology all the time. But, every behavior of the cell is determined by what is in the DNA. All the receptors, surface proteins, and molecular machinery are synthesized in such a way that even one mutation likely means that organisms death. And since each basepair of the DNA is built block by block, rung by rung, in such a specific manner it's hard for me to imagine, say, an organism that is made to process oil spills turning out to also be capable of flesh eating. I see a regulatory agency similar to the FDA springing up as this becomes more common place. (And it will be within the next decade)
And you're right about the militaristic implications, I wouldn't be surprised to see a DARPA contract somewhere in the past of this research.
To add in - we can fairly easily control the replication of synthetic life like this by preventing them from using telomerase....
telomerase is necessary to replicate the last few genes at the end of DNA (during every reduplication) - if you don't give a gene the ability to use it (by not allowing the gene to make it) - then a gene can't replicate without destroying the last few pairs of it's genome.
In most organisms - there is a bit of junk dna at the end of every chromosome - by controlling the length of the junk DNA, and not giving the life the ability to use telomerase - you effectively control how many times the life can reproduce before it dies off (by creating offspring that are lacking important genes)
that statement is so wrong i don't even know where to start.
Nuclear genes? lol okay i'll let you think about that one. Maybe u were just saying that as a figure of speech lol..i dunno
I work in a lab and i work with different strains of bacteria all the time. Without getting into too much detail. They designed the bacteria where it cannot survive without certain conditions/or "food". They have a thing called plasmid in it, that has all the important stuff for them to replicate. if they loose this plasmid they cannot replicate. They also put antibiotic resistance genes on here sometimes; so, when the bacteria is grown in media that has antibiotic the bacteria NEEDS the plasmid to survive so it doesn't get rid of it. You take them out of this media and all of a sudden they will go, ah heck we don't need this antibiotic gene anymore..lets get rid of it..(while doing so they kill themsleves cuz other important genes r on the same plasmid)
True, but plasmids can be dropped or incorporated in the bacterial genome too Also, plasmid mutations have been known to occur. All it would take is one mutation and poor aseptic technique and the world could see a new bacterial strain out there. They've thought of that too, usually these bacteria can't compete with other bacteria for resources. But, like you said, there are many protocols in place that make it extremely difficult for specific lab strains of bacteria to get out into the wider world.
Quote: True, but plasmids can be dropped or incorporated in the bacterial genome too Also, plasmid mutations have been known to occur. All it would take is one mutation and poor aseptic technique and the world could see a new bacterial strain out there. They've thought of that too, usually these bacteria can't compete with other bacteria for resources. But, like you said, there are many protocols in place that make it extremely difficult for specific lab strains of bacteria to get out into the wider world.
where's that Jeff Goldblum diatribe from Jurrassic Park when I need it...
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
![[Linked Image from fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net]](https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/276870_6711658857_1403067853_q.jpg)
Also, plasmid mutations have been known to occur. All it would take is one mutation and poor aseptic technique and the world could see a new bacterial strain out there. They've thought of that too, usually these bacteria can't compete with other bacteria for resources. But, like you said, there are many protocols in place that make it extremely difficult for specific lab strains of bacteria to get out into the wider world.
