First DNA Molecule Constructed from Mostly Synthetic Components 188
ScienceDaily is reporting that Japanese chemists have created the world's first DNA molecule comprised of almost entirely artificial components. The breakthrough could lead to advances in both medicine and technology, possibly utilizing the massive storage capacity of DNA. "In the new study, Masahiko Inouye and colleagues point out that scientists have tried for years to develop artificial versions of DNA in order to extend its amazing information storage capabilities. As the genetic blueprint of all life forms, DNA uses the same set of four basic building blocks, known as bases, to code for a variety of proteins used in cell functioning and development. Until now, scientists have only been able to craft DNA molecules with one or a few artificial parts, including certain bases."
New record for base pairs (Score:2, Insightful)
Well it's been done for many decades. The trick is making the sequence longer & automating the process to not require an army of grad students.
For info storage? Nice idea in theory but... (Score:3, Insightful)
.. DNA decomposes from bactierial , chemical and radiative action so can't just be left on its own locked away for years.
DNA is read slowly by biological means which is hardly easy to interface to digital systems.
DNA is read sequentially , its not random access at the base level making it useless for most types of database.
Current technologies could in theory already be pushed to have greater storage density than DNA - eg transistors made from a few atoms.
So other than an interesting intellectual exercise , whats the point?
Entertaining Theological question... (Score:4, Insightful)
We can, albeit presently with difficulty, construct DNA sequences from artificial materials.
We can, in principle, produce viable eggs by nucleus transfer from one egg to another.
If a "human" embryo is produced from synthesized DNA and by nuclear transfer into an egg from artificial or animal sources, the resulting organism will be structurally equivalent to human, without any physical connection to the human race.
Does this organism have a soul? Is it subject to original sin?
Angels and heads of pins aside; this is pretty cool. There is, though, a slightly unpleasant possible outcome of being able to synthesize DNA sequences. Certain viral pathogens, smallpox comes to mind, are very, very hard to get ones hands on. Samples are tightly controlled and generally not allowed out to play. This is a Good Thing. Genetic sequences, however, are public knowledge. In principle, with sufficient expertise in DNA synthesis(and some protein coating wizardry) one could just "compile" some smallpox from source and then go have a smallpox party with the nearest population center. Happy times.
Re:Whoopee! (Score:2, Insightful)
Some pretty interesting things :
First : C-Nucleosides instead of N-Nucleosides as all natural nucleosides are...
Second : Non-coding synthetic nucleotides allowing various binding interactions etc. Essentially we can create novel regulatory elements.
Unfortunately, typical Slashdot lack of imagination and narrowmindedness when it comes to anything other than computers or politics seems to have overridden this topic.
Re:Entertaining Theological question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whoopee! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunetly, Slashdot lack of imagination and narrowmindedness when it comes to anything has lead to an automatic acceptance of everything as "neat."
It seems to me that you are the one being narrowminded here. Clearly you are knowledgeable on the subject. But to utterly dismiss a research project on the grounds that it seems vaguely like something you did 20 years ago, and you can't see any immediate right-away 2008 benefits forthcoming, I don't know. Do you really believe with such certainly that this research project was a waste or did you argue yourself into a corner and now don't wish to back off from your absolutism?
Frankly, even if this project is derivative and doesn't advance the science in any great measure, I still think it qualifies as "neat." Just as neat as another Firefox nightly or a new version of Ubuntu or some home-brew programming language. Does everything have to advance the sciences to be interesting? Well then, how about this: "Furthermore, the artificial DNA may be a superior building scaffold for constructing nanostructures of materials interest because of the stable C-nucleosides against ubiquitous naturally occurring enzymes such as DNase." Isn't that reason enough?
Re:Whoopee! (Score:3, Insightful)
My objection is not that this isn't "neat." I am always looking out for stuff like this.
My objection is that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal! This type of article deserves to be on the discovery channel or scientific American magazine, NOT in a legitamet scientific journal.
If the artuicle had been about building nanostructures and they had to develop this process to do it that is one thing. But this is the equivalent of saying "I have one rock stacked on another...this may or may not be usefull to build a house." While the technology is different, the end result does not deserve publication any more than my stacked rocks.
Re:Whoopee! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you answered your own question there. Shockingly, they published a paper about something which, to the best of everybody's knowledge, hadn't been done before. Maybe you're sitting on 20 years of groundbreaking research which has created whole artificial chromosomes, but have chosen not to publish. You can hardly blame the rest of the research community for getting on with their lives and publishing what they've done.