Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life

[sparklingway]

Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life
​

By Rachel Swaby May 20, 2010 | 2:32 pm | Categories: Biology

Man-made DNA has booted up a cell for the first time.

In a feat that is the culmination of two and a half years of tests and adjustments, researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute inserted artificial genetic material — chemically printed, synthesized and assembled — into cells that were then able to grow naturally.

“We all had a very good feeling that it was going to work this time,” said Venter Institute synthetic biologist Daniel Gibson, co-author of the study published May 20 in Science. “But we were cautiously optimistic because we had so many letdowns following the previous experiments.”

On a Friday in March, scientists inserted over 1 million base pairs of synthetic DNA into Mycoplasma capricolum cells before leaving for the weekend. When they returned on Monday, their cells had bloomed into colonies.


“When we look at life forms, we see fixed entities,” said J. Craig Venter, president of the Institute, in a recent podcast. “But this shows in fact how dynamic they are. They change from second to second. And that life is basically the result of an information process. Our genetic code is our software.”

Coaxing the software to power a cell proved harder than expected.

After the Venter Institute announced in early 2008 that it had assembled a synthetic Mycoplasma genitalium genome, the assumption was that it would be running cells in no time. But this particular cell type, despite its minimal size, was not an ideal research partner. One problem was speed.

“We had to deal with the fact that M. genitalium had an extremely slow growth rate,” Gibson said. “For every experiment that was done, it took more than a month to get results.”

Moreover, transplanting the code into recipient cells was failing. So researchers cut their losses and called in a substitute, opting for the larger, speedier and less finicky Mycoplasma mycoides. The choice was a good one.

“Over the last five years the field has seen a 100-fold increase in the length of genetic material wholly constructed from raw chemicals,” said synthetic biologist Drew Endy of Stanford University. “This is over six doublings in the max length of a genome that can be constructed.”

Plunging costs of synthesis allowed a leap past the 1 million base-pair mark, from code to assembly. “Imagine doubling the diameter of a silicon wafer that can be manufactured that much, going from 1 cm to 1 meter [fabrications] in just five years,” Endy said. “That would have been an incredible achievement.”

“They rebuilt a natural sequence and they put in some poetry,” said University of California at San Francisco synthetic biologist Chris Voigt. “They recreated some quotes in the genome sequence as watermarks.”

It’s an impressive trick, no doubt, but replicating a natural genome with a little panache is also the limit of our present design capabilities.

Researchers, for instance, figure yeast can handle the assembly of 2 million base pairs, but they’re not sure about more. And an energy-producing cyanobacteria that sequesters carbon, Gibson says, is still several years off.

The ultimate goal, of course, is a brand-new genome from the ground up. Now, Voigt said, “what do you do with all that design capacity?”

Images: 1) Schematic demonstrating the assembly of a synthetic M. mycoides genome in yeast./Science/AAAS. 2) Images of the phenotype of the JCVI-syn1.0 and WT strains./Science/AAAS.

Read More Scientists Create First Self-Replicating Synthetic Life | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[sparklingway]

'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
Page last updated at 16:52 GMT, Thursday, 20 May 2010 17:52 UK
By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News

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.

The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA.

The advance, published in Science, has been hailed as a scientific landmark, but critics say there are dangers posed by synthetic organisms.

The researchers hope eventually to design bacterial cells that will produce medicines and fuels and even absorb greenhouse gases.

The team was led by Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland and California.

He and his colleagues had previously made a synthetic bacterial genome, and transplanted the genome of one bacterium into another.

Now, the scientists have put both methods together, to create what they call a "synthetic cell", although only its genome is truly synthetic.

Dr Venter likened the advance to making new software for the cell.

The researchers copied an existing bacterial genome. They sequenced its genetic code and then used "synthesis machines" to chemically construct a copy.

Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.

"As soon as this new software goes into the cell, the cell reads [it] and converts into the species specified in that genetic code."

The new bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that contained and were controlled by the constructed, synthetic DNA.

"This is the first time any synthetic DNA has been in complete control of a cell," said Dr Venter.

'New industrial revolution'
Dr Venter and his colleagues hope eventually to design and build new bacteria that will perform useful functions.

"I think they're going to potentially create a new industrial revolution," he said.

"If we can really get cells to do the production that we want, they could help wean us off oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by capturing carbon dioxide."

Dr Venter and his colleagues are already collaborating with pharmaceutical and fuel companies to design and develop chromosomes for bacteria that would produce useful fuels and new vaccines.

But critics say that the potential benefits of synthetic organisms have been overstated.

Dr Helen Wallace from Genewatch UK, an organisation that monitors developments in genetic technologies, told BBC News that synthetic bacteria could be dangerous.

"If you release new organisms into the environment, you can do more harm than good," she said.

"By releasing them into areas of pollution, [with the aim of cleaning it up], you're actually releasing a new kind of pollution.

"We don't know how these organisms will behave in the environment."

Dr Wallace accused Dr Venter of playing down the potential drawbacks.

"He isn't God," she said, "he's actually being very human; trying to get money invested in his technology and avoid regulation that would restrict its use."

But Dr Venter said that he was "driving the discussions" about the regulations governing this relatively new scientific field and about the ethical implications of the work.

He said: "In 2003, when we made the first synthetic virus, it underwent an extensive ethical review that went all the way up to the level of the White House.

"And there have been extensive reviews including from the National Academy of Sciences, which has done a comprehensive report on this new field.

"We think these are important issues and we urge continued discussion that we want to take part in."

Dr Gos Micklem, a geneticist from the University of Cambridge, said that the advance was "undoubtedly a landmark" study.

But, he said, "there is already a wealth of simple, cheap, powerful and mature techniques for genetically engineering a range of organisms. Therefore, for the time being, this approach is unlikely to supplant existing methods for genetic engineering".

The ethical discussions surrounding the creation of synthetic or artificial life are set to continue.

Professor Julian Savulescu, from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, said the potential of this science was "in the far future, but real and significant".

"But the risks are also unparalleled," he continued. "We need new standards of safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections from military or terrorist misuse and abuse.

"These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons imaginable. The challenge is to eat the fruit without the worm."

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

I,ve got the bad feeling some screwed up scientist somewhere in the world will look up this opportunity to create harmfull viruses.

If they can create this then is it possible for scientists to create race specific viruses ?

 

[Gene]

 

[gubbi]

The title of this piece is totally exaggerated!

Scientists routinely use large pieces of extra-chromosomal DNA - called as plasmids (depicted as the large circle in the article)-engineered to include specific genes to transfect eukaryotic cells and "make" proteins of interest. These plasmids also contain genes for specific antibiotic resistance so that the cells can grow in antibiotic media.

However, from what I understand from the article, what is interesting in this particular case is that scientists have used totally synthetic DNA sequence - design to synthesis- inserted into a plasmid and transfected into a cell and the cell then produces polypeptides which are encoded in this synthetic sequence!

This isn't that much interesting as the single sentence in the report "In 2003, when we made the first synthetic virus, it underwent an extensive ethical review that went all the way up to the level of the White House". Viruses straddle the wide chasm between life and the dead. They use their molecular make up to invade a host and use the host's machinery to replicate. To create a synthetic virus which can infect a host and replicate is an astounding feat.

Its no mean feat to string together a million molecules synthetically, but the whole circular plasmid into which this string is embedded, ultimately uses the cells machinery to make copies of itself and to made proteins/peptides which the DNA codes for.

Let me get the original article (paper) and then post a more studied comment.

 

[Materialistic]

It will be taken into use by militaries and criminals than any other positive use.

 

[gubbi]

It will be taken into use by militaries and criminals than any other positive use.

No, it cannot. To carry out such experiments it needs years of research experience and an innate knowledge about the various processes of a cell. Not to mention huge amounts of funds for very expensive chemicals!

Anyway, from Dr Craig Venter's previous work, its very simple what his team has done. Like I said in my previous post, they just simply synthesized (the very hard part) and strung a million molecules together, 'stitched' it into that circular piece of DNA (a little less hard- but difficult none the less) and injected it into a cell (easy part - but also depends on which type of cell or strain, whether genomic DNA is removed or left intact, etc). The cell grew. Nice. Thats all. Except for the synthetic part - which does open up a range of possibilities, not exactly exciting, atleast for me.

 

[Pakistani_Athiest]

It can be used in one war, the war against religion! Now we know that we don't need a 'God' to create life! Take that ya fanatics. Get shocked as your dogma is ripped apart by science!

 

[graphican]

What is this "life" going to become when it will be composed of billions of cells? A pile of Cells?

 

[gubbi]

What is this "life" going to become when it will be composed of billions of cells? A pile of Cells?

Yes, but doing various roles and carrying out various duties. Heck with this new totally synthetic DNA code you might give rise to a Chimera!!

You see, developmental biology is a very complicated process. To understand even the basic aspect of developmental biology, one needs to have a very good understanding of the complicated processes that go on inside of a cell, the various intracellular pathways, their complicated cross-talk mechanisms and all this interplay with the surrounding external milieu and other cells in the vicinity. A very simple analogy would be the complicated interconnections of analog telephone lines and the "trunk call" of olden days! But unlike those wires which can be easily repaired, here if one gets cut, every thing goes wrong!

All these mechanisms are intricately balanced with/tuned to each other, anyone goes wrong - you get cancer! Very complicated process. One needs knowledge to understand that, not faith!

 

[TATA]

Scientists create artificial life in lab

Fri, May 21 04:13 PM

Washington, May 21 (IANS) Three Indian-origin scientists are part of a team that has for the first time created a synthetic cell, controlled by man-made genetic instructions, which can also reproduce itself.

The 24-member team included Sanjay Vashee, Radha Krishnakumar and Prashanth P. Parmar.

'We call it the first synthetic cell,' said genomics pioneer Craig Venter, who oversaw the project. 'These are very much real cells.'

Developed at a cost of $30 million by the researchers at J. Craig Venter Institute, the experimental one-cell organism opens the way to manipulation of life on a previously unattainable scale, the Wall Street Journal reported.

According to experts, scientists have been altering DNA piecemeal for many years, producing genetically engineered plants and animals, but the ability to craft an entire organism offers a new power over life.

However, the achievement documented in the journal Science, may stir nagging questions of ethics, law and public safety about artificial life.

'This is literally a turning point in the relationship between man and nature,' said molecular biologist Richard Ebright at Rutgers University who wasn't involved in the project.

'It has the potential to transform genetic engineering. The research is going to explode once you can create designer genomes,' David Magnus, director of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics, was quoted as saying.

The new cell, a form of bacteria, was conceived solely as a demonstration project, though several biologists were certain that the laboratory technique used to birth it would soon be applied to other strains of bacteria with commercial potential, the paper said.

Scientists create artificial life in lab - Yahoo! India News

 

[Iggy]

Three scientists of Indian orgin were also part of the team


Washington, May 21 (IANS) Three Indian-origin scientists are part of a team that has for the first time created a synthetic cell, controlled by man-made genetic instructions, which can also reproduce itself.

The 24-member team included Sanjay Vashee, Radha Krishnakumar and Prashanth P. Parmar.

'We call it the first synthetic cell,' said genomics pioneer Craig Venter, who oversaw the project. 'These are very much real cells.'

Developed at a cost of $30 million by the researchers at J. Craig Venter Institute, the experimental one-cell organism opens the way to manipulation of life on a previously unattainable scale, the Wall Street Journal reported.

According to experts, scientists have been altering DNA piecemeal for many years, producing genetically engineered plants and animals, but the ability to craft an entire organism offers a new power over life.

However, the achievement documented in the journal Science, may stir nagging questions of ethics, law and public safety about artificial life.

'This is literally a turning point in the relationship between man and nature,' said molecular biologist Richard Ebright at Rutgers University who wasn't involved in the project.

'It has the potential to transform genetic engineering. The research is going to explode once you can create designer genomes,' David Magnus, director of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics, was quoted as saying.

The new cell, a form of bacteria, was conceived solely as a demonstration project, though several biologists were certain that the laboratory technique used to birth it would soon be applied to other strains of bacteria with commercial potential, the paper said.

Scientists create artificial life in lab - Yahoo! India News

 

[gubbi]

Let me say this,
They have NOT created "LIFE". All they have done is copy the DNA code from a cell, make that in a 'test-tube', remove the original DNA from the cell and put this new 'test-tube' DNA into the cell.

Guess what, it worked! The cell survived and started growing and dividing! It is indeed quite an achievement.

Now, instead of putting the 'test-tube' DNA into the cell, if you put DNA from another type of cell into a cell whose original DNA has been removed, you get a 'clone'! The famous "cloning" process!!!!

Oh, there are a lot of scientific papers which have Indians onboard! If the name isnt first on the list or the last (corresponding author), it aint worth mentioning!

Geez, the media just exaggerates, out of proportion, any scientific achievement, and the scientists do play along!!

 

[airuah]

they just made a synthetic dna and replaced the original dna with the synthetic one so the cell survived ....
however there has been attempts to completely build an entire cell synthetically..... and they did suceed ....but were not able to induce life.... all that they created was a dead /lifeless cell.....it is still a mystery about how life can be introduced into it....there lies natures secrets....something we may not find out

 

[deckingraj]

Let me say this,
They have NOT created "LIFE". All they have done is copy the DNA code from a cell, make that in a 'test-tube', remove the original DNA from the cell and put this new 'test-tube' DNA into the cell.

Guess what, it worked! The cell survived and started growing and dividing! It is indeed quite an achievement.

Now, instead of putting the 'test-tube' DNA into the cell, if you put DNA from another type of cell into a cell whose original DNA has been removed, you get a 'clone'! The famous "cloning" process!!!!

Oh, there are a lot of scientific papers which have Indians onboard! If the name isnt first on the list or the last (corresponding author), it aint worth mentioning!

Geez, the media just exaggerates, out of proportion, any scientific achievement, and the scientists do play along!!

In other words now they can create cell of a specific DNA on their own....which means they can create a cell on their own...However they cannot give it a behaviour and have to depend on a copy of DNA structure... In essence they are a step closer in creating life on their own...