Dtnytro on 23/5/2010 at 15:17

---

Yes it goes towards proving that genesis (as in the bible), is fantasy.

if it kills god or not... that depends on your conception of a God.

God is the garden, said Albert Einstein.

Kaleid on 23/5/2010 at 20:43

---

PZ Myers comments for teh win

First round of ill-informed objections to the first synthetic bacterium
(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/first_round_of_ill-informed_ob.php)

DDL on 24/5/2010 at 22:35

---

As far as I can tell from the paper (and previous work from that lab), they didn't even strip the DNA from the recipient cell: the donor DNA contains a gene for antibiotic resistance, the recipient doesn't, so you stick your donor DNA into the recipient cell and whack in some antibiotics: presumably at cell division there's a given chance that each daughter cell will get one or both genomes (god knows the poor bugs must be confused), but only the ones with the donor DNA will survive, so after a few generations you just have your donor DNA-containing cells.

So really, it's not 'creating life' de novo at all, it's simply taking an existing healthy cell and changing the DNA in it.

Reading the discussion, they seem to be trying to claim that this proves that straight-up DNA sequence is all you need for instructions to make new life...which sidesteps the issue of needing all the right enzymes and cofactors and metabolites as well (hello recipient cell), which of course are essential. I guess they're trying to show that other, non-DNA-sequence-based levels of information (such as small RNAs, or DNA imprinting, or proteins bound to the DNA) are non-essential, but this work doesn't even answer that question: they have no idea what levels of additional information sources are already in the recipient cell, and given that it's an incredibly closely related species, there are unlikely to be any conflicts, and once a few generations have passed it's moot anyway.

Plus, fuck: they've deliberately chosen the simplest bacterium they could find, so the chances of there being significant non-DNA-based informational content are basically zero anyway.


What they've shown, in a nutshell, is that you can build a simple genome manually (er..if you stick it into e.coli, and then into yeast, and let them do it for you) and then use this simple genome to change one species into another. If it's unicellular. And simple.

Which is impressive, but still hardly the OMG OMG OMG that they're going on about.

Hesche on 25/5/2010 at 13:25

---

Urg, I hate lenghty posts. If your attention span is as short as mine: an abstract of the following paragraphs would be:

We don´t know enough to fiddle around carelessly with such a potentially dangerous technique.




Looking to find analogies between an organism and a single cell, I always figured the DNA or the eucaryotic cell´s core to be the "head" or "brain" of the cell. It´s were all the information about the cell is stored after all and since all proteins, the "working machines" of the cell, are coded on the DNA life should not be possible without DNA.

But as you said: cells are perfectly viable without any kind of DNA. Of course they are not able to reproduce but they don´t drop dead if you remove the "brain". If supplied with nutrients they still show metabolic activity, respond to attractants or repellents and show all behavior you would expect from a normal cell. So DNA is not the "magic spark" inserting life into something.
Actually, the cell membrane has more resemblance to a brain than the cell core does. Removing the cell membrane leads to immediate cell death. The cell membrane with all its surface proteins, receptors and channels (the sense organs of the cell) serves as a tool to perceive and react to the environment.

Since the discovery of the DNA and the genetic code the scientific community is highly euphoric about having found the essential building block of life. Massive research efforts have been undertaken with focus on DNA, genetic code, genes etc.

Take the Human genome Project, the complete decoding of the human genome, THE largest project with over 3 billoion dollars of funding ever started in Biology. A project Greg Venter donated his DNA for research purposes IRC. The assumption up until the end of this project is that DNA and the number of genes coded on it define the complexity of the life form. One gene coding for one protein, the working machines of life, as stated in the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology) central dogma of molecular biology: (funny to find such a religous and ideological term in science)

One of the most baffling results of this project was that a lot less genes were actually found coded on the DNA than were expected to be necesseary to create this complex life form that man is. Actually it only takes approximately twice as much genes of a fly (ca 12.000) to create a man (24.000 genes).

So as DDL already stated: DNA is not the only thing defining the complexity life. Or more positivly speaking: you are more than the sum of your genes. Proteins or RNA interacting with DNA, controlling the transcription and translation of genes play an underestimated role here making the whole (re)creation of life even more complex than thought of now.

As for GMOs (genetically modified organisms): As DDL already said, the usage of lab strains is one of the security measures taken to make sure GMO aren´t released into the environment in an uncontrolled way. There are a couple of other safety regulations and measures (which differ from country to country) which every laboratory working with GMOs has to follow and are controlled by the authorities.

Now all these safety measures (which cost money) aren´t implied for nothing. Mankind knows that it is fiddling around with something potentially dangerous and most certainly irreversible.

I can only speak from my experience (ie German regulations, which are actually pretty strict) and state my feelings (not actual knowledge) about this: I am not 100% sure that all the GMOs I created will in NO WAY EVER influence the environment should they be released. There are billions of life forms out there which haven´t even been discovered yet which are in constant contact and exchenge with each other. We know microorganisms of different species can exchange genes, plants can send their genomic information (pollen) over quite huge distances so it seems improbable that "foreign" DNA stays within the boundaries we defiened in the first place.

The danger of mankind being erased by an genetically modified virus or bacterium is quite low I think, because this danger is obvious and security measures are correspondingly high. Now releasing harmless GMOs in massive numbers as it for example happens with crops worldwide (over 90% of soy beans planted in the USA are actually GMOs) can lead to an unforeseeable chain of events. Eating products made from those GMOs does not bear any risk as far as we know today. The danger of direct consequences from exposition to those GMOs is obvious and therefore security tight and research thorough to exclude the obvious risk.

But having a HUGE amounts of GMO crops out there bears a potential for unwanted consequences leading to changes to the eco system.

You know, it´s like Toyota having to racall huge parts of their fleet world wide because they used this one little incorrect part in many models. And that was a relativley short chain of events there.

demagogue on 26/5/2010 at 17:34

---

In celebration of this achievement, I've been reading a book on theories of the origins of life (Popa, Between Necessity & Probability: The Definition and Origin of Life). A good quote I like that I think fits with the point DDL and Hesche were making why this isn't exactly "sparking life" is "Nothing is alive in a cell except the cell."

At least the author of this book has an affinity to more holistic theories where the essential pieces coevolved together (energy, boundary, metabolism, order, information and handedness), rather than successively being added to the mix. So he doesn't ask which came first, but what might have been early analogues for each role. (Or he doesn't ask how NAs or proteins could have been abiotically assembled since they may have been made entirely within life from the start.) He doesn't exactly advocate actual "holism" either, though, since he still thinks the explanation should refer just to physical-chemical agencies so it's not a circular definition.