Artificial Bases Added to DNA

holy_calamity writes "Researchers have successfully added two 'unnatural' DNA letters to the code of life. They created two artificial base pairs that are treated as normal by an enzyme that replicates and fixes DNA inside cells. This raises the prospect of engineering life forms with genetic code not possible within nature, allowing new kinds of genetic engineering."

Ok whatever

[QuantumG]

As I don't even understand WTF they've done, I'm gunna go ahead and suggest that this isn't the technology I've been waiting for.

Problem: it is now possible for people to take the DNA sequence for a nasty virus off the web and send it into a DNA synthesis company, pay the $20,000 and get vials and vials of the virus sent to them in under a month. And next year the price will drop to $10,000.. and the year after it will drop to $5,000.. and the year after it will drop to $2500.. and the year after it will drop to $1250, etc.

One Solution: tag each strand of DNA that is synthesized with an "batch number" by incorporating a pattern of artificial bases that will be replicated each time the DNA sequence is replicated. So if someone gets a nasty virus synthesized and puts it in the subway or something then you can read the batch number and trace who bought the DNA.

A bigger story from ~10 years ago

[digitalderbs]

You're right. The intention here is not to create new proteins, but to tag DNA and possibly create new DNA nanostructures. At the end of the day, mRNAs that are translated to proteins still will only have access to the same set of tRNAs, and therefore, the same 20 amino-acids.

The article can be found here [acs.org]. [PDF download requires a subscription]

A more interesting discovery (in my opinion) -- from the Scripps Institute -- was made about ~10-15 years ago (IIRC) by Pete Schultz's [scripps.edu] group. They modified tRNAs so that specific codons (DNA/RNA triplets) could incorporate chemically-modified amino-acids into a protein. Some of this has led to interesting work on protein tagging, functional studies as well as the study of molecular evolution. All this is done with in vitro translation, as far as I know.

In regards to "been done before"

[Zebraheaded]

These two "new bases" are basically nucleoside analogues...which have existed for years. Usually they are used in anti-viral applications. What happens, is that they are similar enough to existing bases to be incorporated into a growing DNA strand, but are different enough to be unreadable. This works to put a monkey wrench in the viral machinery. The article is very vague, but what Im taking from it is that these two new bases are readable, and that with a proper supply, DNA containing these bases can be properly replicated. What I'm interested in knowing, is how the new codons containing these bases will be interpreted.

Re:Artificial bases would have what effect?

[Hatta]

Well not very yet. Before they can get these new bases to actually code for anything, they have to design a tRNA that recognizes the new bases. Then they have to make a novel aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase that attaches a new amino acid to the new tRNA that recognises the new codons. As it is, putting this DNA into any sort of organism would do nothing.

Re:In a word ... Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to try to sound smart by using Latin phrases, at least get the spelling right. It's "per se", genius.

Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"

[Jesus_666]

Here it does apply, but it's stuck on pretty much any story remotely involving science...

"Scientists Create Artificial DNA Bases With Unknown Properties" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"Ultra-Durable Ceramic Invented" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"New Discovery Makes X-Rays Safer" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"Groundbreaking New Image Processing Algorithm Makes Next-Gen GPUs Much Faster" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"Scientist Discovers That Shakespeare Had Tourette's" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"US Science Funding To Increase By 20%" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"[FAMOUS SCIENTIST] Dead At 71" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"Where Have Computer Linguistics Come Since The Seventies?" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"The Ten Greatest Discoveries Of Astrophysics" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong


If the software behind Slashdot automatically translated the tag "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" into "science" I'm pretty sure that the quality and applicability of the tag would not decrease in the slightest.

Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"

[TheThiefMaster]

You don't have to do it from the firehose, you can do it from the article page too.

Just click the triangle.

^BumP^

[TubeSteak]

Clicking the triangle next to the tags magically drops down a box so you can add your own!
Who knew!

Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"

[garcia]

Is it that it just doesn't work sometimes? I've had that happen.

It never works, thus why I chose what I did -- to see if it would work. Yes, I tried to tag one on Monday (it didn't appear) and that's why this discussion was continued on by me.

Re:The Audience is a Harsh Mistress

[Valdrax]

So there is absolutely zero danger of such artifical DNA escaping the lab and getting into the environment cause goodness knows what damage?

There's no indication that the new sequences code for any amino acid. Thus there should be no environmental impact unless the new nucleotides are somehow poisonous. Essentially, this is complete junk DNA which is mostly useful for its properties of being easily identifiable as non-biological in origin.