# 'Synthetic life' breakthrough announced by scientists



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

An interesting breakthrough and one that is sure to be divisive.



> Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell.
> 
> The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.
> 
> ...


BBC News - 'Synthetic life' breakthrough announced by scientists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2fifud1MDE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVXecXsQjCE


----------



## SilverScorpio17 (Nov 13, 2009)

I JUST read this and came here to create a thread about it.

This is so amazing! So much could be done with this information, but unfortunately, I know people aren't going to accept this easily. 

Here's the link to the full research article: Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Yes! Soon, I will have an army of sexy amazons.


----------



## SWalker (Jan 27, 2010)

This is incredible, I've been following things like this for a couple years but i never thought they were so close to actually completing such an undertaking.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

I wish people would quit using contrived analogous terms in articles like this. :dry:

It isn't "software", it isn't "read" and there is probably no "conversion" in the context of reading software. >.< They need to find other words to use and quit patronizing people like this. Layman's terms are one thing but this stuff practically encourages willful stupidity. 

Anyway.... interesting article, otherwise.

Edit: the reason I'm picky about this is because 'software' is information. We call it a set of instructions, but it is still virtual information... you can write a program, literally, down on paper if you want to and it still is the same conceptual information as if it were on a hard drive, or flash drive, or whatever. DNA is a substance, it even has weight and chemical properties.

DNA is no more software than aspirin. Aspirin is not software which tells your headache to stop, it's a substance which causes a reaction in the body.


----------



## AgentSH (Feb 1, 2010)

Erm, there's one fact that's kinda glossed over in this article. They didn't write the book, they photocopied it.
Having said that, it certainly is an important step in the practice of genetic engineering.


----------



## SilverScorpio17 (Nov 13, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> Yes! Soon, I will have an army of sexy amazons.


I think they can only synthesize bacteria right now...



SWalker said:


> This is incredible, I've been following things like this for a couple years but i never thought they were so close to actually completing such an undertaking.


In one of the interviews, I heard Dr. Venter say that they've been working on something like this since 1995. I didn't know that until he said it though.


----------



## Shawn (Apr 10, 2010)

So they managed to copy the DNA of a cell and then implant it into another cell? Nice, but I'll be more interested when they are able to manipulate the information encoded in the DNA to get the cell to do what they want.


----------



## entplay (Feb 6, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> DNA is no more software than aspirin. Aspirin is not software which tells your headache to stop, it's a substance which causes a reaction in the body.


 
Disagree. Software reads binary code from 1's and 0's. It reads a line of code like so 1111110000011100001110000001111100 - program executes the code. DNA works the same way as 'software.' It looks like this: AAAAGGGTTTCCCAAATTCCCGGGGGGGGG - program executes code. Every living system is continuously executing software via AGCT, not 1's and 0's. It's fundamentally the same idea and how we bioengineer this type of innovation.


----------



## Lucem (Dec 2, 2009)

Sound interesting.

I'd like to have my own bacteria fuel cell in my backyard....please.


----------



## Third Engine (Dec 28, 2009)

Shawn said:


> So they managed to copy the DNA of a cell and then implant it into another cell? Nice, but I'll be more interested when they are able to manipulate the information encoded in the DNA to get the cell to do what they want.


Actually, they were able to construct a genome from scratch and then import it into an empty cell (someone correct me if I'm wrong). This could really lead to some really, really awesome things, or it could lead to a real-life zombie movie


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

entplay said:


> Disagree. Software reads binary code from 1's and 0's. It reads a line of code like so 1111110000011100001110000001111100 - program executes the code. DNA works the same way as 'software.' It looks like this: AAAAGGGTTTCCCAAATTCCCGGGGGGGGG - program executes code. Every living system is continuously executing software via AGCT, not 1's and 0's. It's fundamentally the same idea and how we bioengineer this type of innovation.


You aren't understanding. The information is not the same as the substance. You can _write_ 1's and 0's on paper and have it be an instruction for _anything_ whether it be the magnetism on a metallic hard drive platter or the way you arrange some pieces of macaroni. The information is not in the substance, the information shows us how the substance is arranged.

Like fuel makes a car engine run; the concept of the molecular structure, which is information, does not. You cannot tell the car the instructions of the molecular form verbally and have it go, even though you are relaying the _information_ of how fuel is formed... you still need the _fuel itself, with little to no room for substitutions._

Do you get what I am saying now? :crazy:


----------



## entplay (Feb 6, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> You aren't understanding. The information is not the same as the substance. You can _write_ 1's and 0's on paper and have it be an instruction for _anything_ whether it be the magnetism on a metallic hard drive platter or the way you arrange some pieces of macaroni. The information is not in the substance, the information shows us how the substance is arranged.
> 
> Like fuel makes a car engine run; the concept of the molecular structure, which is information, does not. You cannot tell the car the instructions of the molecular form verbally and have it go, even though you are relaying the _information_ of how fuel is formed... you still need the _fuel itself, with little to no room for substitutions._
> 
> Do you get what I am saying now? :crazy:


 
In a way, from what you're describing, the code is the fuel itself. The molecular structure, that info, tells the cell or bacteria what to do. Like a flower will execute a sequence of gene code and bloom. There's a line of code that tells the flower to do that. Its like software. You can program a car to drive....you can program a cell with DNA 'software.' Its not misleading. I have a biology degree and I know a lot about DNA and bioengineering. I have a double helix tattooed on my arm.

Look up Juan Enriquez on Ted Talks and you'll better understand why they make that analogy.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

entplay said:


> In a way, from what you're describing, the code is the fuel itself. The molecular structure, that info, tells the cell or bacteria what to do. Like a flower will execute a sequence of gene code and bloom. There's a line of code that tells the flower to do that. Its like software. You can program a car to drive....you can program a cell with DNA 'software.' Its not misleading. I have a biology degree and I know a lot about DNA and bioengineering. I have a double helix tattooed on my arm.
> 
> Look up Juan Enriquez on Ted Talks and you'll better understand why they make that analogy.


The analogy is outside of the field and it is being presented to people not in that field. It is not computer science, nor is it information engineering. I'm not questioning your or anyone's biology knowledge, I'm questioning your use of analogy which is NOT accurate. You are basically saying that the whole structure 'executes' a set of instructions. This is akin to a cake mix reading the instructions printed on the back of its own box and baking itself. It is not like software - it's closer to firmware or hardware. *Code has no physical presence. It is an interpreted thing.*

You need to separate cognisant action interpreted by human minds from a system at work. This is nothing like interprocess communication that software has; software is constructed to entirely arbitrary standards to work for itself with itself, based around the _physical_ platform it is used on. Or as you described it earlier:


> It looks like this: AAAAGGGTTTCCCAAATTCCCGGGGGGGGG - program executes code.


It does *not* look like that. That is a bunch of *letters* which is your human interpretation of the sequence. The sequence is the information, but it is not _actually_ a sequence of A's and G's and so on. You are interpreting a _sequenced arrangement_ into some letters. _That in itself (the sequenced arrangement) is the 'code',_ if there could be said to be a code.

I'm kind of tired of seeing this abused by people with degrees and Ph.D's - it's gone on for too long.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

I edited this video I saw of him talking about this into your OP....sorry if you mind! I'll put it in my own post if you care much but I feel like you won't.....

Anyhow, yea. Brilliant stuff.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> I edited this video I saw of him talking about this into your OP....sorry if you mind! I'll put it in my own post if you care much but I feel like you won't.....
> 
> Anyhow, yea. Brilliant stuff.


I certainly don't mind, those are interesting videos.


----------



## waterviolet (Apr 28, 2010)

Ok, so I'll admit that this is amazing; one big step for the bioengineering world. Yet - the implications...or rather the unforseen implications could be HUGE and not in a good way. After reading the article yesterday I sat there for about 5 minutes imagining the pros and cons. Scary amazement.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

waterviolet said:


> Ok, so I'll admit that this is amazing; one big step for the bioengineering world. Yet - the implications...or rather the unforseen implications could be HUGE and not in a good way. After reading the article yesterday I sat there for about 5 minutes imagining the pros and cons. Scary amazement.


This man addresses it:

http://personalitycafe.com/science-technology/21950-juan-enriquez-shares-mind-boggling-science.html

So...in a sense. It's pretty much mandatory.


----------



## PseudoSenator (Mar 7, 2010)

Shawn said:


> So they managed to copy the DNA of a cell and then implant it into another cell? Nice, but I'll be more interested when they are able to manipulate the information encoded in the DNA to get the cell to do what they want.


 Aren't they already doing that in a sense with stem cells? Feel free to enlighten this eager INTJ :wink:


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

PseudoSenator said:


> Aren't they already doing that in a sense with stem cells? Feel free to enlighten this eager INTJ :wink:


No--what you're talking about is just using stem cells (completely organic and natural cells) to replace damaged cells that have already specialized. 

What this dude did is created an ENTIRE genome himself--wrote the whole thing like html--and then inject it into an empty chromosome. Then voila--'life'.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Kevinaswell said:


> What this dude did is created an ENTIRE genome himself--wrote the whole thing like html--and then inject it into an empty chromosome. Then voila--'life'.


He copied the genome from a different cell and added a couple signatures to it. ("Dr. Venter copied the DNA from one species of bacteria and inserted it into another.", Synthetic Bacterial Genome Takes Over Cell - NYTimes.com) He didn't create the entire genome himself.

Also, how can we do this, but we can't explain f**king magnets? Miracles.


----------



## whisperycat (Aug 9, 2009)

timeless said:


> Also, how can we do this, but we can't explain f**king magnets? Miracles.


Mmmmmmmmm, magnets. Pushing two magnets together (pole to pole) and feeling them resist. Now THAT is real magic.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

timeless said:


> He copied the genome from a different cell and added a couple signatures to it. ("Dr. Venter copied the DNA from one species of bacteria and inserted it into another.", Synthetic Bacterial Genome Takes Over Cell - NYTimes.com) He didn't create the entire genome himself.
> 
> Also, how can we do this, but we can't explain f**king magnets? Miracles.


Yes he did. He was the first to ever create an ENTIRE GENOME synthetically. Are you trying to say that something that doesn't exist in nature and that was created by man--even if it uses pieces of things that exist in nature as building blocks--ISN'T synthetic? Because yes it is :-\ That's like saying someone who built a chair didn't really BUILD A CHAIR--they just assembled chunks of wood together.

You can't nitpick things like that :O

Also, magnets are tricky and their properties are inherent to a scale of existence that is not in common with that of DNA. 

I found a follow up article that goes into the philosophies of this achievement a bit more, check it out:

_"After he announced the creation of the first organism with a fully synthetic genome last Thursday, Craig Venter, founder of the genomics research institute that bears his name, went on to talk about how this breakthrough will benefit industries like pharmaceuticals, energy and materials.

In his explanation of the methods used to create the synthetic bacterium, Venter highlighted an important use for synthetic organisms: research. Like living test tubes, bacteria created by scientists could serve as controlled platforms for experiments by reducing the complexity that obscures the workings of many biological systems.

This work could lead to staggering findings in two major ways. First, cells with synthetic genomes could allow scientists to essentially snip out the complexities of living cells leaving only the simpler parts. This would give researchers a better way to untangle the enormously complicated interactions that occur in natural cells, and could help unravel the secrets of baffling diseases like cancer.

"People are really pretty much stuck about what actually happened on our planet to make new life forms," said David Fitch, an associate professor of biology at New York University. "There have been lots of experiments that propose different ways new living systems could have arisen, and maybe some of these issues could be addressed by synthesizing new genomes with very simple kinds of pathway structures."_

More here.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

There's an entirely different connotation between saying, "I wrote a book" and "I copied someone else's book."


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Or better yet: there's a difference between copying an arrangement and making your own arrangement. :laughing:

It's like just building a chair but not designing the chair. He didn't write the manual for a chair (e.g. the bits that say "has four legs, a back, and a seat, in this shape and configuration") he just built the chair from an existing configuration and maybe tinkered with it a little. But I reiterate that a chair is *still wood*, also. :crazy:


----------



## PseudoSenator (Mar 7, 2010)

Kevinaswell said:


> No--what you're talking about is just using stem cells (completely organic and natural cells) to replace damaged cells that have already specialized.
> 
> What this dude did is created an ENTIRE genome himself--wrote the whole thing like html--and then inject it into an empty chromosome. Then voila--'life'.


 
I already know what this guy accomplished. Look at what I quoted.

Thanks for answering my question though, and what a scientific feat that is!


----------



## reyesaaronringo (Dec 27, 2009)

i like the analogy its succinct and makes sense. it gets to the heart of what they did.


----------



## DasPhillipBrau (Apr 2, 2010)

there will always be controversies about this...I would not like to be cloned...and my clone would feel very bad I guess...and who will be who? and you cant terminate the clon once he is born...its another life, and imagine what will happen if someone clones some madman???


----------



## Dooraven (Dec 9, 2009)

sprinkles said:


> It does *not* look like that. That is a bunch of *letters* which is your human interpretation of the sequence. The sequence is the information, but it is not _actually_ a sequence of A's and G's and so on. You are interpreting a _sequenced arrangement_ into some letters. _That in itself (the sequenced arrangement) is the 'code',_ if there could be said to be a code.
> 
> I'm kind of tired of seeing this abused by people with degrees and Ph.D's - it's gone on for too long.


Wait, I'm lost here, are you saying that the Genetic code does not look like a sequence of As and Gs?. 

If yes: Well obviously, the As, Ts, Cs and Gs are representations of adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine nitrogen bases. They are substitutions made to make life a little bit easier, the actual DNA structure is however, a sequence of Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine and Thymine nitrogen bases with a deoxyribose-phosphate back bone.

Please clarify further please.


----------

