Page 1 of 2

Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:09 pm
by JK
Just over a year ago, Dr. Craig Venter announced that his laboratory had synthethised the bare-bones of a living creature using only chemicals found in most biotechnology labs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/25/genetics.science

The biologist and entrepreneur Craig Venter has announced the creation of a synthetic chromosome, knocking down one of the final hurdles to building the world's first artificial life form.

Venter, best known for his race against publicly funded scientists in the 1990s to sequence the human genome and more recently for hunting the oceans for unknown genes, said the latest work was a "significant but not final step" to creating new life.

In a paper published today in Science, Venter's team described the synthesis of the entire genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium from laboratory chemicals. The resulting DNA sequence has about 582,000 base pairs of genetic code in 485 genes. Venter said it was the largest artificial sequence ever made, 20 times longer than any previous attempt.

The team at the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland is working on the final step to create life: transplanting the synthetic DNA into a cell in the hope that it will "boot up" the cell and take control of its growth and reproduction.

The scientists, led by Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, began by building long strands of DNA, each a copy of about a quarter of the whole M genitalium genome. These were inserted into yeast cells, which stitched together the strands to make clones of the whole genome, named M genitalium JCVI-1.0.

The next step is to insert the synthetic chromosome into a cell, so that it can reproduce and become a new life form. Venter's team has already demonstrated that transplanting the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another can change the cell's species, a process his team will now use with the new synthetic chromosome.

Smith said that producing the artificial genome was like finishing the operating system of a computer. "By itself, it doesn't do anything, but when you install it on a computer, then you have a working computer system. It's the same with the genome: the genome is the operating system for a cell and the cytoplasm is the hardware that's required to run that genome."

The work comes out of a larger JCVI effort to discover the minimum number of genes needed for a life form. In its natural state, M genitalium has 485 genes, 100 of which have been found to be non-essential. Synthetic biologists want to use this information to create the most efficient form of life possible, with the fewest genes needed to allow the organism to grow, replicate and proliferate.

Venter said there were two main reasons for the work. "One is trying to understand the minimal operating system of a cell and to understand basic biology. If these experiments are successful we could enter a new design phase of biology by actually constructing chromosomes of a specific nature for a more specific purpose."

Stripped-down designer organisms have huge potential for creating alternative sources of energy or tackling climate change by soaking up carbon dioxide.

Venter has previously claimed that an artificial fuel-producing microbe could be the first billion- or trillion-dollar organism. "When you think of all the things that are made from oil or in the chemical industry, if in the future we could find cells to replace most of those processes, the ideal way would be to do it by direct design."

But Jim Thomas, of the Canadian bioethics organisation ETC group, called for a moratorium. "In the absence of democratic oversight profiteering industrialists are tinkering with the building blocks of life for their own private gain."


This represents a massive breakthrough in the field of biotechnology, but also represents a prickly ethical dilemma. Should we be allowed the create organisms in the laboratory to suit our own ends? Can we be responsible for what we create? And what's to stop somebody creating a deadly disease-causing microbe that is resistant to all known antibiotics and vaccinations?

Is this a natural step in the research process? Or is it simply playing God and the ultimate insult to the sanctity of life?

Opinions, please. Hopefully we can get some decent discussion on this pretty interesting topic.

I :wub: science.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:13 pm
by Skarjo
Did they artificially insert some introns or was it purely a cDNA genome?

That's right, I know some gooseberry fool.

By the way; it's just a phase in research, as valid and vital as any other. Scientific discoveries have no moral nor ethical dimension; only what we do with them does.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:16 pm
by Mommy Christmas
What the strawberry float are you on about? In simple language.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:41 pm
by Harry Bizzle
Should we be allowed the create organisms in the laboratory to suit our own ends? Can we be responsible for what we create? And what's to stop somebody creating a deadly disease-causing microbe that is resistant to all known antibiotics and vaccinations?


How is this any different than regular genetically engineered organisms?

It always struck me that the Ames style testing with antibiotics was never a very good idea, but to be honest I think the risk of creating a microbe with multiple resistancies is a bit unlikely.

As far as I'm concerned, viral vectors are a far more interesting part of genetic engineering. I think once we sort out how to use retroviruses without say, inadvertently causing leukemia by mispositioning genes, it'll be the next big breakthrough for modern medicine.

Did they artificially insert some introns or was it purely a cDNA genome?


Well, if they're trying to make the smallest genome possible, I'd imagine they're leaving out the introns (non coding dna), right?

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:43 pm
by Turok
How do you synthesize a molecule as long as a genome? Cause that's what a genome is, right? A single long molecule?

Also, how does this relate to that dude's experiment of the '50es where he synthesized proteins from inorganic molecules and electricity? 1000, double spaced, thankyouverymuch.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:45 pm
by Memento Mori
I've watched Battlestar Galactica. I see where this is going.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:47 pm
by Fatal Exception
If God created us in his own image then that surely means we can play god?

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:47 pm
by Turok
Fatal Exception wrote:If God created us in his own image then that surely means we can play god?


Just because you look like him doesn't mean you can act like him.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:57 pm
by Skarjo
Harry Bizzle wrote:
Did they artificially insert some introns or was it purely a cDNA genome?


Well, if they're trying to make the smallest genome possible, I'd imagine they're leaving out the introns (non coding dna), right?


Well, indeed, but our understanding of introns is in it's infancy, and even it's most commonly accepted explanation (there's always a random chance of mutation, and introns make the chances of seriously important DNA being affected by mutation even less) means that a cDNA organism would be highly unstable.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:00 pm
by That
Skarjo wrote:Well, indeed, but our understanding of introns is in it's infancy, and even it's most commonly accepted explanation (there's always a random chance of mutation, and introns make the chances of seriously important DNA being affected by mutation even less) means that a cDNA organism would be highly unstable.


Image

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:56 pm
by Space Viking
Fatal Exception wrote:If God created us in his own image then that surely means we can play god?


SOURCE?

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:02 pm
by jj_hunsecker
JK wrote: using only chemicals found in most biotechnology labs.


Are there any chemicals in particular that you wouldn't find in a biotechnology lab? If I lived next door to one, I don't think I'd be going down to Aldi for my daily chemical needs.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:22 am
by Oh Teh Noes
Space Viking wrote:
Fatal Exception wrote:If God created us in his own image then that surely means we can play god?


SOURCE?

The strawberry float are you on about? :?

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:27 am
by Earfolds
If a man can create life, then the creation of life must be a natural process. It might be an anthropic process, but it's hardly going to become an unstoppable force of anti-nature ready to reap revenge on our terrible, deity-insulting deeds.

Also, Large Hadron Collider.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:48 am
by Earfolds
Anung wrote:Collider....but i just met her!

Don't be silly; I wasn't talking to you. Your hadron is not large.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:11 am
by Alvin Flummux
Artificial Life is only going to get progressively more advanced from here, and may end up at the stage where we will start attempting to re-create extinct species - first going for ones that went dead in the past few years, moving further and further back.

We may also wind up creating very large, very dangerous living war machines.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:18 pm
by Dowbocop
It's not really creating life is it? Life needed to exist to create the cellular machinery the new genome was implanted into, so it's more of a nuclear refit in my opinion. It's still very interesting though...

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:43 pm
by Drunken_Master
God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs...

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:50 pm
by Alvin Flummux
Man destroys dinosaurs. Man creates mini-man.

Re: Creating Life

Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:53 pm
by Corazon de Leon
Alvin Flummux wrote:Man destroys dinosaurs. Man creates mini-man.


It's a mini-adventure?