Yesterday news was published all over the media: scientists succeeded in creating a synthetic bacterium! But what did they really do there? and how? and why? And of course - who will it bring in money?
Let's start with the last question. The entrepreneur who steers the artificial bacteria project is Dr. Craig Venter, a biologist by training and one of the people everyone loves to hate - but agrees that without them nothing would have moved. He is a ruthless businessman, and proved that he has a good nose for business when he started a rival project to the 'Human Genome Project'. The company he founded, Celera Genomics, managed to sequence the entire human genome of five people in two years - a huge achievement compared to the public laboratories that completed the work in ten years. In short, he knows how to move things. By the way, one of those five people whose genetic code has been fully deciphered is Venter himself. From this we know today that he has an increased risk of anti-social behavior, Alzheimer's and moist earwax. That's how it is, no human being is perfect.
After he finished sequencing the human genetic code, Venter started a new project: the creation of an artificial bacterium. What does that actually mean? Contrary to what several people think, the meaning of 'artificial' is not to take molecule after molecule and put them together in the right way until you get a new bacterium. The technology we have is still light years away from such an achievement. Venter did something very different, but very effective: he used the body of a bacterium of one species, and injected synthetic DNA into it and thus breathed new life into it.
Sound complicated? Ok, let's start from the beginning.
Each bacterium has its own genetic code, which contains the operating instructions for that bacterium. The genetic code differs from bacterium to bacterium, and this is also the reason why bacteria are different from each other - aggressive or harmless, resistant to antibiotics or dead in room air, breaking down oil or breaking down human tissues. The difference lies mainly in the genes found in the genetic code. Each gene contains an instruction for a different feature of the bacterium.
Since the seventies, scientists have been engaged in very limited genetic engineering of bacteria. As part of this genetic engineering, they are usually able to change one, two or three genes in a bacterium, thereby giving it new properties - or eliminating existing properties. In this way, for example, the bacteria that secrete human insulin were created. Today, these bacteria are grown in tanks, and from them they produce the insulin that diabetics inject themselves to stay alive.
So far everything is fine and dandy, but we still haven't been able to utilize even a fraction of the ability of bacteria. There are bacteria that can break down oil, for example, and we can use them to get rid of oil spills in the sea and on land. Other bacteria can produce biofuel. Bacteria carrying the right commands will one day be able to live inside our intestines, and produce specific antibiotics as soon as they sense an invasion into the digestive system. A promising future, isn't it? Well, yes, but only if you assume that these bacteria can't do anything unexpected. It is not a smart idea to introduce bacteria into the intestines when they contain several hundred more genes about which we know nothing and a half, and those genes may allow the bacteria to multiply uncontrollably and flood the body... or eliminate all the oil in the world... or produce biofuel also from plants intended to feed the the third world In short, the only way we can be sure of these bacteria is if we know exactly which genes they contain. And ideally, they would contain only the most basic genes they need to survive and perform their function. And maybe also breed a little, but only under control. But in order to produce such a bacterium, we practically have to engineer its entire genetic code from start to finish.
And this is where Craig Venter comes into the picture. Venter scanned the entire genetic code of a bacterium called Mycoplasma mycoides, and recreated it synthetically. This is far from a simple task, because the length of the genetic code of that bacterium is a million bases: a million 'letters' that make up the code sequence. Venter synthesized all the million bases in the correct order, then inserted the entire sequence as is into the body of a bacterium of another species, Mycoplasma capricoloum, from which the original genetic code was extracted. The result: a body of a bacterium of species A, which contains the operating instructions of a bacterium of species B. And now a real resurrection happened. The genetic code came into action, the genes in it were translated into proteins and the bacterium came to life, endowed with all the signs of bacterium B - this is that Sunter created his genetic code artificially.
Can this research be defined as the creation of artificial life? I'm not sure. On the other hand, the current breakthrough is much closer to the definition of artificial life than any other success to date. But beyond the poetics and the Promethean passion ("and you were like God"), the success of the research provides sweet hints about the future of research and development in biotechnology. Venter can already produce bacteria with an entire genetic code of his choosing. He will choose which genes to put in the bacterium, and which genes to leave out. This ability, which is currently still in its infancy, will in the future lead to the creation of bacteria that will be able to treat air pollution and turn it into oxygen, water and carbon dioxide. Venter's bacteria could function as tiny, tiny submarines that would sail through the bloodstream and monitor the body's condition. They will contain memories in their genetic code, act as tiny computers and generate energy and electricity. And yes, they will also serve as the most fearsome weapons of war we will ever be exposed to: weapons that could wipe out all life on earth, if not designed properly.
This is Craig Venter's future. This is our future.
24 תגובות
Kudos to you for the clear explanation even for laymen! 🙂 Following the Technion's success, I am looking back at what happened and it is very clear here.
The arrogance of the scientists... a disaster.
do not understand science:
There are people who simply do not understand science and there are those who do not understand because they do not want to understand.
You, I think, are among the latter.
To these I suggest to simply abandon all the achievements of science and go back to living in the jungle.
I have no idea about science but we have already seen where sophisticated inventions have led many times. Does anyone really think that they won't use it to produce terrifying bacteria for an advanced biological weapon?
So from what I understand the idea is to start with the entire genome of a single bacterium and then slowly understand which gene or sequence does what in it to reach the most basic sequence that still functions. Then we have the option to add or remove genes that will actually make it do anything we want, and after we have succeeded in doing this on a germ, who prevents us from making an exchange on all the cells in humans with the help of germs.
A bit futuristic isn't it?
playing god is a meaningless dangerous cliche
Exactly what I thought when I read the last paragraph (with an emphasis on the meaningless).
It turns out I'm not the only one:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/05/playing-god-is-a-meaningless-dangerous-cliche/
Roy, you are an asset. Don't stop writing!
Imagine,
If eventually we reach a situation where humans are able to control 100% the properties of the bacteria,
We could engineer a bacterium, which would be adapted to life on another planet (Mars for example) and from the materials found there, make an environment that would allow life for other larger creatures. (Changing the composition of the gases in the atmosphere, etc.)
If the same DNA was returned to the bacterium, it would come back to life and function as the same bacterium it was before.
Because he was given back a different DNA, he became a different bacteria.
I did not understand,
If they took out the DNA and put the same DNA back in, would the bacteria also be resurrected? Or just because it's different DNA. What causes bacteria to resurrect?
Mark, you are right that it is quite similar to what they did with Dolly the sheep where they took out the nucleus and put in another cell's nucleus. Here, too, they took a cell and inserted a completely new genome into it. The addition here is that the new genome was artificially synthesized by a device and not taken from an existing cell. What was taken was information and not material. This is still progress, at least on a philosophical level, which shows that theoretically today we can synthesize an entire cell because there is not a single component in the cell that has not been synthesized artificially. The next step will be to synthesize variations on the genome and then it will be really new.
I thought it was about building an artificial genetic code from scratch, what Schonter did was a simple cloning on a much more extensive scale than we knew until now
It will be possible to engineer bacteria also for the operation of "earthing" Mars and maybe even Venus
Since the issue has already been raised on the website, I refer you to a response I wrote in one of his shows in the past
Ori:
No way?!
How did you come to this conclusion?
First of all - it is absolutely impossible to replace the DNA of person A with that of person B.
In order to do this, you have to remove the DNA from each and every one of the trillions of cells and replace it - without destroying it.
This in itself is impossible.
It is possible to replace the DNA of a single cell and this is the scientific basis for what they did here and also for the idea of cloning (where the desired DNA is inserted into the single cell from which the person will develop and from which the DNA will be copied to all his cells).
But even if all the DNA could be replaced, person A would not become person B.
This can be seen in several ways.
The only experimental way is to look at identical twins and see that even though they have exactly the same DNA they are not the same person.
The way based on logical deduction is to remember that a person is more than his DNA - it also includes his body structure in general - and in particular the memory created as a result of his past experiences (in particular - because memory is also engraved in the structure of the body and especially in the structure of the brain).
Replacing the DNA will not replace the body structure and in particular it will not replace the memories, knowledge and skills.
We cannot know if it will replace the way reality is experienced (including the way memory is experienced), but it certainly cannot convey to person A what person B learned and experienced.
Well, nanotechnology is different in its goals and the scale of the work... but when it comes to the DNA chain... yes, enough 🙂
Excellent article! Thanks.
Gil Dotan:
You start by testing the programming first, to check that what you intend to do is possible at all. You intend to build a genome of a bacterium, so obviously you will start with something you know works (a bacterium from nature), to be sure of your process. Now that the process had been proven to be effective, he could build a genome at will, and when that didn't work he knew he must have designed something that couldn't live. But theoretically there is now no obstacle to take the genome of a bacterium that breaks down oil, for example, which already exists, and remove from the genome everything that seems irrelevant, and if the assumptions were correct, then a bacterium will be obtained that all it knows how to do is only break down oil. And up there the distance is really not great.
They just did a COPY PASTE (not that I'm disrespecting God forbid) but they didn't change code and didn't invent code parts.
From here to what they wrote about such and other bacteria with different and different functions, the distance is quite large.
It sounds good, only the pace of construction is still quite slow... I believe and hope that in the future the pace will increase and become faster from generation to generation like in computers and it will be possible to "produce" spare parts for the body within a few hours ready for implantation!
If I understood correctly, engineered bacteria could, for example, clean clogged veins from the fats that have accumulated in them over the years, but what would be most interesting is a calvinic bacterium... which does everything according to the local requirements in the body with a tiny transmitter that will transmit to the computer the type of activity that was performed, what is called "done"!
It's amazing how in the global political and economic reality the situation is on the edge and they don't know what's going on and expect difficult days in all areas... and in the middle of all this mess a small light shines for him heralding a new world in some press conference... and the question is whether this is the music of the last days of Pompeii before we hear the thunder The atomic bomb has the last word or humanity will survive and even improve!
Thanks Roy, it is particularly interesting to understand that there is actually no difference between nanotechnology and genetic engineering of the type in question
So theoretically it is possible to take DNA from one person and transplant it into another person? And actually what... replace the person with someone else?
Your important article.
Excellent article, I finally understood what this is all about.
Great article, thanks for the great explanations.