Artificial life created (one for the biology geeks)
Discussion
I got excited for a moment there, someone had finally got some spark out of a primordial soup. What they've actually done is to synthesise a genome and put that into a real bacterium. Mycobacterium has I think the smallest known genome, a simple circular structure. It's been done with viruses before and the step change here is that while it is the smallest bacterial genome, it's still a lot bigger than a viral genome. I should have known- Craig Venter is well known as a self-publicist. As you were...
sonic_2k_uk said:
I'm not sure i understand the significance of this - haven't we been sequencing DNA and adding it into existing bacteria/microbes for years? e.g. adding sequenced amino acids into yeast for mass-insulin production.
Yup. That's splicing a couple of genes into the existing DNA in the cells. What he's done here is replace the whole DNA with a completely synthetic DNA molecule.Still a long way from "creating life" though, IMO.
sonic_2k_uk said:
I'm not sure i understand the significance of this - haven't we been sequencing DNA and adding it into existing bacteria/microbes for years? e.g. adding sequenced amino acids into yeast for mass-insulin production.
The significance is that previously we could pop an extra bit of DNA into some cell or other that already had its own DNA and get it to co exist with the original bit. What Venter has done is to "make" a complete genome of his own - all the genes necessary for life, and stuff this into an existing cell. SOme how, he has then got the new DNA to kick out the original DNA and away you go. New DNA takes over the cell and a new bug is born. However, what he actually did was to take a bug with the smallest known genome (mycobacterium), work out which genes were absoluteley necessary for "life", and remove all the others (ones that help the bug lie free in the environment for example). You then have a minimum genome for a bug. You then pop this genome into the new bug and away you go.
There is a huge distance to go to get the bug to do all the wonders that were speculated on on the program. And it wont be comming for you in the middle of the night any time soon either......
Cracking stuff though from Mr Venter
GTIR said:
Pistonheads.com member 78967 welcome. 
Thanks!Although 78967 is a trifle formal, you can call me Chris
Back on topic:
I find this sort of this amazing, although I get frustrated by all the nay sayers who like to get their little spiel in about how this is the 'beginning of the end' and "Haven't you seen 28days later/read The Stand?"
On a personal note, I was involved with some genetic splicing in my undergraduate training - I helped to insert the fluorescence gene from a jellyfish into a mouse embryo - then once the babies grew up they glowed - science is awesome. Fact.
I read the paper in Science on Friday after seeing all of the media coverage and being a bit confused about what the scientists involved had actually done.
The coverage in the media of this work has been absolutely awful, and the headlines are totally misleading. What has been accomplished is to push current technology as far as it will go. A synthetic copy of a natural genome has been inserted into some cells of a different species, which have then replicated and 'turned into' the species described by the genome.
What has not been achieved is the creation of a 'new species' with a 'man made' genome - it was just a synthetic copy of an existing genome. It is an incredible feat and a major stepping stone towards creating a 'designer organism' from scratch but it certainly is not the creation of 'artificial life'
The coverage in the media of this work has been absolutely awful, and the headlines are totally misleading. What has been accomplished is to push current technology as far as it will go. A synthetic copy of a natural genome has been inserted into some cells of a different species, which have then replicated and 'turned into' the species described by the genome.
What has not been achieved is the creation of a 'new species' with a 'man made' genome - it was just a synthetic copy of an existing genome. It is an incredible feat and a major stepping stone towards creating a 'designer organism' from scratch but it certainly is not the creation of 'artificial life'
DangerousMike said:
I read the paper in Science on Friday after seeing all of the media coverage and being a bit confused about what the scientists involved had actually done.
The coverage in the media of this work has been absolutely awful, and the headlines are totally misleading. What has been accomplished is to push current technology as far as it will go. A synthetic copy of a natural genome has been inserted into some cells of a different species, which have then replicated and 'turned into' the species described by the genome.
What has not been achieved is the creation of a 'new species' with a 'man made' genome - it was just a synthetic copy of an existing genome. It is an incredible feat and a major stepping stone towards creating a 'designer organism' from scratch but it certainly is not the creation of 'artificial life'
Agreed, very misleading media titles flying around.The coverage in the media of this work has been absolutely awful, and the headlines are totally misleading. What has been accomplished is to push current technology as far as it will go. A synthetic copy of a natural genome has been inserted into some cells of a different species, which have then replicated and 'turned into' the species described by the genome.
What has not been achieved is the creation of a 'new species' with a 'man made' genome - it was just a synthetic copy of an existing genome. It is an incredible feat and a major stepping stone towards creating a 'designer organism' from scratch but it certainly is not the creation of 'artificial life'
To 'create life' rather than modify it there must be no living thing in the starting materials.
_Batty_ said:
very interesting stuff.
love this comment though
Ann Mitchell wrote:
How is this a 'god' moment?
God created reality. A man 'created/modified' a cell.
People are so ignorant...
Let’s step back even further.love this comment though
Ann Mitchell wrote:
How is this a 'god' moment?
God created reality. A man 'created/modified' a cell.
People are so ignorant...
Evolution created not only man, but an overactive imagination.
People with overactive imaginations created god.
A belief in god creates a reality for many people, which is a very different thing.
All people are truly ignorant. Some can accept their ignorance and live with it. They are then free to investigate the universe, slowly reducing the ignorance and replacing it with understanding based upon rigorous scientific method.
Other people cannot accept their ignorance. They replace it with a feeling of certainty based upon religious faith and dogma. This can only divert from reducing ignorance.
DangerousMike said:
we (as in mankind, i take no credit ) have already achieved he creation of artificial life if you consider the total synthesis of a virus has been achieved. 
I thought it was 2001 but it turns out to have been 2002:) have already achieved he creation of artificial life if you consider the total synthesis of a virus has been achieved. http://www.stonybrook.edu/research/milestones1/pag...
The nature of viruses in biological classification has always been disputed.
Show me man-bear-pig and it's a wrap
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff