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.
Re:New record for base pairs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New record for base pairs (Score:5, Funny)
Simple, buy a Wii/XBox 360/Playstation 3 like the undergrads.
Layne
Re: (Score:2)
You will have top be innovative, and work on studies like this [theonion.com]
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?
Re: (Score:2)
One property DNA has that transistors don't is that with some enzymes and spare base pairs it can copy itself. You can dissolve lots of copies in a liquid and spray it about to have redundancy. Whether this is useful, I don't know. I doubt that pouring a test tube of synthetic DNA into the ocean and letting it reproduce itself and diffuse around the globe will replace Bittorrent any time soon.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was article some time where the scientists demonstrated how it was possible to solve the "Travelling salesman problem". Different strands of DNA were constructed to represent the different route segments that were possible and replicated. These were all mixed up together in a container and stirred together. As they were mixed together different strands would join up.
The solution to the problem was the shortest strand that had the starting point and ending point, along with each and every route destina
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What "it's sequential at the base level" have to do with anything? Even in a database once you get to the address of a specifc blob of data .. you need to read off a sequence of characters right.
Unless you mean that to access a specifc data region the DNA must be read sequentially? So if a cell needs to make a protein from say the middle of a chromosome it has to unravel and read through the entire chromosome?
I don't think so.
When a protein is needed, a transcription factor is used that attaches to a specif
Re: (Score:2)
So are you going to have an infinite number of transcription factors then for every possible piece of data stored in the DNA?
I don't think so.
DNA is a effectively a hard wired database where the required data/protein recipes must exist for the cell to work. The cell doesn't just make up new proteins as it goes along unlike a database which can store any combination of data anywhere in any given amount (up the maximum) at any time and said data can be updated or deleted at any given time.
Try doing that with
Re: (Score:2)
DNA is a effectively a hard wired database where the required data/protein recipes must exist for the cell to work. The cell doesn't just make up new proteins as it goes along unlike a database which can store any combination of data anywhere in any given amount (up the maximum) at any time and said data can be updated or deleted at any given time.
That's not true. Retroviruses for example are quite adept at inserting themselves into a specific location within DNA of a host cell. So yeah, it's possible to in
Re: (Score:2)
"Why infinite?"
Err , because you can choose to search for anything in a database. It doesn't have to actually be in there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not an addressing problem though, a search can just go through the whole database incrementally and return the required information when you find it with no need for an address. Kind of like using a limited linked list where you always have to work from the head and can never directly address anything else.
Besides, if something isn't in the database, there will be no need for an address for it anyway, so you don't need infinite addresses for infinite search terms.
If you want an infinitely large datab
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps computer interfaces may be a bit of a stretch, but the potential for custom DNA sequences, whether it's to make new drugs or do nanoengineering for things like solar panels or battery components, is tremendous.
While I doubt it would work with artificial bases, since I doubt you could readily get DNA made of artificial bases to reproduce inside an organism one of my favorite potential uses for "ordinary" custom DNA sequences is to eradicate invasive species. You need to make "greedy" (parasitic gene
Who cares? (Score:5, Funny)
This is nothing new...I created a DNA molecule out of entirely synthetic components for my 5th grade science fair project. Mine was made out of colorful wooden balls glued to wooden sticks. Theirs appears to be sugar-based, which would probably attract ants, so mine is obviously superior.
Can they use silcon in place of Carbon? (Score:2)
Re:Can they use silicon in place of Carbon? (Score:4, Informative)
They can...but you wouldn't want to.
Silicon also has 4 bond sites which you need for the complex chemistry of life. You can make identical molecules except switch silicone for carbon.
But life will almost certainly NOT do this elsewhere.
Silicon chemistry takes more energy than carbon chemistry.
As an example I will point to earth. Silicone is hundreds of times more common than carbon in the crust yet life did not evolve to use Silicone, it instead used the less common carbon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, imaging breathing out sand (Mommy-2 style)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I tire of people who are convinced that earth-life is the only possible solution. It works here. Fine. Change the environmental condit
Re:Can they use silicon in place of Carbon? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes...I am still convinced that carbon would rule the roost.
In order for silicon to even remotely compete, Silicon dioxide would have to be gaseous. At the several hundred degree higher temp, large and complex molecules become unstable.
In addition silicon is a larger atom which creates a greater limit on structures than carbon.
Carbon would still be used with Ammonia. Using methane absolutely requires carbon (methane being a hydrocarbon).
There is no known condition in which silicon would be preferable while still allowing for large complex molecules.
I get annoyed when people ignore basic physics and chemistry for their own pet beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
However on further though let me add that while I don't think life would EVER spontaneously arise using silicon, it would be theoretically possible to artificially create a silicon based life.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I tire of people who are convinced that earth-life is the only possible solution.
Don't take this personally, but I tire of people whose imaginations outstrip observed evidence. I can imagine all sorts of things - silicon-based life is just one of them.
But reality is that we're not finding life in places where modern-day earth life could exist, and we're not seeing or hearing evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. I know that we've only begun to search, but we already have enough evidence to say for a fact that life is not ubiquitous.
So here's what we know: 1) once life
Re: (Score:2)
I very much agree with you with one exception:
2) but it's apparently *really* difficult to get life started.
we don't have the telescope resolution to really see if life exists elsewhere. We can't see earth sized planets and we can't analyze the atmosphere of the ones we do see. Life COULD exist there and we wouldn't know it.
All we can say is that intelligent life at the industrial age or better (which is when we could have a chance of detecting them) is non-ubiquitous.
Re: (Score:2)
we don't have the telescope resolution to really see if life exists elsewhere.
Yes, you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
On Earth, we've got the solar influx for the energy gradient, water is the solvent, and the carbon compounds provide the chemical-reaction basis. Environmentally, the Earth's temperature and atmospheric pr
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that such a fantasy?
What you just said isn't a fantasy, because you were able to back it up with sound reasoning. My complaint is people who talk about silicon for no other reason than that they saw it on star trek.
Re: (Score:2)
I was watching some coverage of NASA's recent earthmoving (marsmoving?) efforts, and was stunned at just how stoopid the reporters can be. I expect that the NASA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Life really isn't possible for anything but Carbon or Silicon. The reason I can say that is the number of bonds. 4 bonds allow for extensive and complex networks which complex chemistry requiers. Boron, tin, lead etc can't do this.
We essentially live on a planet with an over abundence of silicon and a virtual absence of carbon. Silicon is so much more plentiful than carbon it is almost silly. On proto-earth the only availible carbon source was the atmosphere and in a water world, like earth, air is a l
Re: (Score:2)
You can make similar molecules using silicon, but you can't make identical molecules. If you took say, a protein, and replaced all the carbons with silicon, that protein would not function. I'm not even certain the protein would remain intact. I'm not aware of any large, complex molecules, on the scale of a protein, made with silicon as the primary backbone. Silicon chemistry simply doesn't lend itself to large, complex, molecules.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this organism have a soul?
Do you (or anyone else) have a soul? Why would a "synthetic" human be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an atheist and a materialist, so such an organism would be little more than a curiosity; but would be considered human because structurally so. It just struck me as an interesting example of something where technolog
Re: (Score:2)
If one is a Jehovahs Witness or Seventh Day Adventist then a "soul" is simply a living, breathing creature such as birds,fish insects and mammals. In the first 2 chapters of genesis "and on the fourth day God created fish", etc... They are all referred to as "living souls". Numbers 6:6 states that touching a "dead soul" makes a person "unclean". In other words a corpse. The bible agrees with your materialist views of physical life, but many bibles have been written to change words to match preconceived reli
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify the common misconception that a "soul" is some ghostly thing inside a person: as CS Lewis once said "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."
You don't have to be religious to believe in the existence of the soul. That word is just a description of that which is emergent from a sufficiently complex neurological system (i.e. thoughts, feelings, personality, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
My point was: "Make op your own mind about what a soul is. Then using your definition of a soul determine if a synthetic human has enough differences with us to make it a soulless being."
My answer would be: Yes, we have souls and so would these synthetic humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this organism have a soul? Is it subject to original sin?
More importantly, does this organism have the same rights as other human beings?
The sane amongst us would probably say "of course it does, it is a living, breathing, thinking human". Unfortunatly the sane aren't always in control. Living, breathing humans have been enslaved, tortured, and murdured throughout our history, often without consequences when one can simply claim "they aren't really human, they're black or jewish or a terrorist...".
Re: (Score:2)
If we teach 2 other non-standard pairs of bases to code the same 20 aminoacids and be capable to provide an organism with these nonstandard nucleotides and if we will modify DNA polymerase so it will only replicate those non-standard bases-based DNAs, then we will be protected from ALL viruses.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that's an awful lot of work. Easier just to boot up a linux distro.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why an artificially created human embryo would not eventually develop a soul (i.e. thoughts, feelings, identity, etc.) like a natural human embryo. If the structure is the same, I don't see why t
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the soul is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm seriously concerned that our malignant social system has been far below replacement levels for generations, and has only avoided collapse this long because we've been milking the population from more healthy cultures. Except, our success in spreading our malignant social system is leading to a point where immigration won't be there to fill the void
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Fuck adoption. We don't spinsters and fags caring for unwanted babies, we need MORE BABIES. This whole attitude about being unfit for parenting is a crock.
If you really hate your kids that much, and you hate my kids, and other peoples kids, then I want you to fucking die and get out of my way so we can rape your wife into pregnancy and beat her into lifelong submission. If she can't be made into a fit mother, well, she can die too. Shitty, but if she were a good woman, it wouldn't be nece
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. It is your nations authoritarian regime that will fall.
I don't know how your twisted mind transforms "Democracy, with votes contingent on a demonstrated connection to future generations of society" into "Authoritarian fantasy", but I do know that before too much longer, unless the means by which we allocate resources changes, your going to watch your peers (and possibly yourself) get into health care and look after childless elderly. They will do this because they're desperate to get at the
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a materialist, the answer is simple: no, because we don't either. If you're not, however, I think the question is equivalent to whether or not it's a philosophical zombie. The good news for that standard is that it's universal: a truly conscious AI has just as much a soul as a human. The bad news is that you can't measure it (unless there are some things philosophical zombies just can't do, which would also give a reason for why evo
Re:Entertaining Theological question... (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, inflammation wants to be free!
the SAME building blocks?! (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't quite true. DNA is the genetic blueprint for all cellular lifeforms. There are RNA viruses, there are prions... neither of which use DNA as their genetic blueprints.
And to get really nitpick-y, it's incorrect to say that DNA uses the same set of four building blocks. It would be "more" correct to say that DNA uses a set of four building blocks. I mean, it'd be rather ridiculous if every lifeform on the planet had to share just four molecules.
But, it's not as if we should expect an article geared towards an ignorant public to be completely accurate... the gist was captured.
Anyway, I think I just managed to pedantically get "the Mondays" out of my system... sorry for the rant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Viruses and prions are not, generally, considered to be alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I admit my immense ignorance of everything cellular biological but I don't quite get what you're saying.
Viruses possess an ability for locomotion and propagation. They also feed, discriminate against certain agents and other cells.
They are also 'squishy'(the best definition of life as I know it so far).
How is a virus not alive simply because it doesn't have adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine all twisted up inside a cell nucleus like a cheese string?
(Not being snarky, I'm honestly curious.)
Prions I get
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a native speaker, so the definitions in english might not be entirely the same, however viruses aren't generally considered to be alive si
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks.
Ha! Take that RIAA/MPAA! (Score:2)
Now I can store pirated music in my DNA!
Re:Ha! Take that RIAA/MPAA! (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can store pirated music in my DNA!
I don't know if I'd like that. You start surfing some porn sites and the RIAA slaps you with intent to distribute.
Stress on base pairs (Score:4, Informative)
I also detect that some folks may not understand the implications. Right now the given combination of natural DNA base pairs can only code for the 20 base amino acids used in nature. If we could create a DNA system that can code for other types of amino acids (in addition to or instead of), we would be able to make some very interesting proteins that would do gods know what, but would make for some great possibilities.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The latter part is actually far more work then creating this type of 'artific
Not Synthetic, Artificial (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't a case of synthesizing familiar, natural DNA from scratch. That's been done for years and this research was done on commercial equipment for doing so. These researchers created a new type of DNA using four bases that are each similar to but distinct from the four bases that are found in natural DNA. A new chemistry basically. The article suggests that previous attempts had been unstable but this one is not. This could lead to advances like creating DNA molecules with more bases, to increase the density of storage, or find chemistries that are particularly amenable to manipulation, or who knows what.
Doesn't anyone RTFA? (Score:5, Informative)
No, this isn't ordinary DNA produced by synthetic means. If that were the case, it would be of little interest to anyone but a few specialists.
What's new is that THIS synthetic DNA uses a different set of bases. not the usual C, G, T, and A.
Presumably, therefore, it cannot usefully be read or replicated by the usual cellular machinery. That incompatibility makes it, arguably, less of a biohazard (or maybe more of a biohazard, since it might bind to the cellular machinery and gum up the works).
The potential applications for this synthetic DNA apparently involve using it as a structural component of nanostructures. Theoretically it could be used for high-density data storage, though it's hard to imagine how the information could be either written or read.
The mystery of "life" (Score:5, Interesting)
It is possible for a very simple "lifeform" with only 54 base pairs [ucr.edu] to be self-reproducing, but only if it is parasitic. Such "lifeforms" exploit the complex and sophisticated DNA machinery of the host to accomplish reproduction.
I found it amazing that the simplest known lifeform that can reproduce independently is the Mycoplasma genitalium bacteria [wikipedia.org], with 582970 base pairs! This probably isn't the simplest one that can theoretically exist - it is hard to imagine the right combination out of 4^582970 appearing at random in the pre-life organic soup - but whatever simpler thing existed before it is a mystery, as well as why none of the simpler forms still exist today (if that is the case).
This has been bugging me for some time, and as far as I can tell no one has a good answer.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have the time and inclination, you might want to wander through the first four of these lectures [rockefeller.edu]. They talk about using simple RNA chemistries as tools for coming with with potential progenitors to Life As We Know It. Quite interesting and of course rather speculative.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course if you put it that by saying "4^5
still cool, but a bad summary. (Score:4, Informative)
So, how long before .... (Score:2)
Applications for Artificial DNA (Score:2, Informative)
As other readers have noticed, the authors of this study have used existing DNA synthesis technology to incorporate non-natural bases into DNA. While it is impressive that the authors could design bases with the correct geometry to support a DNA-like double helix, the chemistry is not too novel. However, the ability to customize DNA-like polymers has a few interesting applications.
First, all of the sci-fi applications involving artificial life are not really feasible because one would have to design a hug
Artificial STD? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA, they created a new stable DNA molecule with four bases that are each similar to but different from the bases found in natural DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA, they created a new stable DNA molecule with four bases that are each similar to but different from the bases found in natural DNA.
But they use, uh, *synthetic* carbon !
Just like the carbon they make plastic with ! (no, really !) Those atoms, they're spooky !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
geez, sounds like you woke up on the wrong side of the helix.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going read the in-press papers about the total synthesis of snow flea antifreeze protein instead, though.
Re:Whoopee! (Score:4, Informative)
It hasn't been known for a long time. It's been known that a stable DNA helix can tolerate an aberrant base pair from an alternate nucleotide (maybe introducing a slight kink in the minor groove). However, entire oligonucleotides from alternate bases with complementarity and association into duplexes has definitely not been done before. Ever since the structure of DNA was determined it has been theoretically possible to create artificial helices, but that is different from actually doing it. This is some very nice work.
Re:Whoopee! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I work in pharmaceuticals. I am constantly shocked by what random chemicals someone has in stock just sitting there.
Just because you can't buy them from a drug store doesn't mean it isn't readily availible (for the right price)
Alrighty then... (Score:3, Funny)
Since you guys seem to be very "up" on this "DNA" stuff, I shall posit a question...
From the Apex of my complete ignorance about Synthetic DNA, does this discovery mean I should:
A) Begin stocking up on weapons, ammunition and food in a highly defensible bunker for the inevitable Solanum virus outbreak and subsequent zombie horde plague.
B) Begin boning up on my virtual gaming ability as our new Synthetic DNA Overlords encapsulate all of humanity in a virtual world until such time as The One frees us all.
C)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Whoopee! (Score:4, Informative)
They created a DNA like molecule with out using the four molecules cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine. Now, I don't really see any immediately obvious applications for this new molecule, but it proves to me that it is possible for life to have evolved a similar information storing mechanism distinct from the one used by all life on earth and that is interesting.
Re:Whoopee! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ummm...that alternate nucleotides were possible was proven 30 years ago. Synthetic DNA was only created 20 years ago.
While the 4 bases used do have some advantages in sysntesis, stability and other effects, tehre is no compelling reason that requiers thoes 4 bases.
I have no idea how this got published...The reason a similar article hadn't been published earlier is because every reputable scientist in the field agrees with you:
Now, I don't really see any immediately obvious applications for this new molecule
This article did nothing to expand our knowledge. It didn't prove anything. All it showed is that the machine they ALREADY had in the lab could do everything the manual they got with it said it could.
BTW, I don't see any responses modded down like you suggested...
Re: (Score:2)
The initial post made it sound as though they were talking about creating a normal DNA strand from scratch which
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I can't see any negative mod points on any of thoes posts and new modding doesn't change the history.
I bet thoes people have poor Karma and so they aren't given free points when they post.
As for designing complementary nucleotides, yes that is slightly more difficult....However I had the capability of doing it 10 years ago with a piece of chemistry modeling software that requiered for every freshman at my school. After you have complementary chimicals you could probably just order them from a catalogu
Re: (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:Whoopee! (Score:4, Interesting)
First: C-Nucleosides are nothing new and are readily availible in catalogues
Second: Life already uses a wide variety of non-coding nucleotides typically created through post synthesis modification. One example of post synthesis modification used to control coding is methylation.
Unfortunetly, Slashdot lack of imagination and narrowmindedness when it comes to anything has lead to an automatic acceptance of everything as "neat." This is an example of wasted research money that did not creat new information and has not lead to any new insights into nature.
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: (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 usefu
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (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
Re:Whoopee! (Score:5, Informative)
PCR, the polymerase chain reaction, takes a quantity of DNA and "multiplies it" so you have more to work with Everything in your jar is replicated blindly.
DNA fingerprinting chops up a mixture of DNA strands at specific base sequences, then the resultant mulch is labelled (radioactively or otherwise) at other specific base pair sequences, and the whole mess is sorted by fragment size to produce a unique fingerprint. Again, this is a blind process.
DNA sequencing allows one to obtain the sequence of bases in a DNA strand by a process tangentally related to DNA fingerprinting, but far more time consuming and finnicky as you want to make sure you're sequencing the right stuff.
Actually building a DNA single strand, with a specific sequence of perhaps six nucleotides, from raw feedstocks, was until fairly recently a nightmarish process involving umpteen protective groups and studying it caused me to swear off organic chemistry for good. Fortunately there are much simpler automated processes available but of course that wouldn't have made for a very challenging university module.
However, those oh-so-efficient processes are optimised for oligonucleotide chains of your common or garden five NA bases. This team have created a DNA double-helix using entirely synthetic bases which is a pretty novel thing IMO.
Re:Whoopee! (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I made a living for a number of years doing research with PCR.
I sited DNA fingerprinting because it is a process that most people have heard of that uses PCR. Notice I said it was an example. My post was intended for those people WITHOUT advanced degrees in Biology/Chemistry. If you would like to talk about annealing temperatures, extension times, point mutations, hair-pin turns or anything else let me know.
You are also right, DNA is not just sugar. It also includes the base and the phosphate group. However my snide remark is still valid. You are not talking about unusual chemistry. I am willing to bet good money that every component was readily available already.
This team did nothing novel. As you pointed out, there are automated processes to manufacture short chain nucleotide chains. These machines are already capable of including single point mutations of non-typical nucleotides. All they did is fill up the machine with there off the shelf chemicals and hit go. They then re-ran the program but in reverse. When they mixed the two batches together....DNA molecules!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Novel but useless. The most important feature of DNA that makes it different from polyethylen is replication.
People can tweak DNA polymerase to work with non-standard bases [bioedonline.org]. And that is more interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Create an egg with Mostly Synthetic Components...
It's mostly harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I sure hope (s)he's from a non-English-speaking country... getting through grade school would be hard with a name like "annoy".
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, there is nobody with the last name "Inouye" who is native Japanese. So I won't have to tell too many people.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. Why do we call it the Edo period instead of Yedo, and why is the island Hokkaido instead of Yezo? (To your credit, we still (incorrectly) call it "Yen" in the west.) Maybe because it completely fell out of the language. "Smyth" still exists in English, "ye" doesn't in Japanese. Period. It's a bad romanization of "we", which was officially dropped from the language in 1946, and had been pronounced identically to "e" for perhaps hundreds of years before that. Not changing
Re: (Score:2)
That is why this is more interesting:
Enzymes stitch together non-natural DNA [bioedonline.org]:
etc.
Re: (Score:2)